Bill said <<we've no idea whether TPOs actually achieve their aims>>
I agree Bill - it is a fundamental flaw. When you think of all the effort
that goes into TPOs it is surprising that Govt hasn't looked into it.
If you look at the Forestry Act we can see quite clearly an increase in
woodland cover over decades which suggest that has worked. I actually think
that we need to adopt the Foresters view of urban trees which makes
wholesale protection much more appropriate. The Tree Commission isn't all
one way!
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Andersonarb@xxxx.com [mailto:Andersonarb@xxxx.com]
Sent: 05 July 2009 12:59
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: TPOs and Planning Committees
In a message dated 05/07/2009 09:39:21 GMT Standard Time,
jdflannigan@xxxx.com writes:
It seems to me that a lot of effort can be spent dealing with applications
in areas where there is high tree cover and little effort made protecting
trees in areas where there is little cover.
This bit of your posting highlights the fact that doesn't it John? Are those
high tree cover
areas actually "high tree cover areas" because of TPOs? And vice versa; are
low cover areas like this despite TPOs?
TIT2 could usefully have tried to answer this question. I suspect that the
truth is something along the lines of big houses, big gardens, bigger/more
trees....
Bill.
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
