UKTC Archive

Re: Christmas coppicing conundrum

Subject: Re: Christmas coppicing conundrum
From: Edmund Hopkins
Date: Dec 23 2002 09:17:51 <> wrote:

Well you should have. How are we gonna move the TPO system forward if
we don't shove a few test cases in? The TPO should be protecting the
idea of a tree rather than than the specific tree. If thats not the
case then the freshly planted replacement for a diseased TPO'd tree
would never warrant the TPO that automatically covers it.

The learned Noble Lords might eventually take the advice of those of
us who know might they not?

I think that everybody in here would agree that such a Hazel is
definitely a major feature and worth protecting even if freshly
coppiced so where's the problem?

Yes, I've already stepped back from that position reading the ensuing
correspondence, but I may yet have been right. If I look at a tree one of
the questions I always ask myself is "Would we win an appeal?" In this case
I felt that the amenity of this hazel was likely to be modest and the appeal
likely to be lost on that ground alone. However I support the obvious
consensus that this is something of value which wants coppicing. And the
other popular UKTC view that our definitions of amenity should move on to
embrace biodiversity etc.
Edmund Hopkins
Arboricultural Officer

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal
views which are not the views of Nottingham City Council unless specifically
stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system,
do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance
on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that Nottingham City
Council monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will
signify your consent to this.

The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send