In a message dated 26/07/2009 11:12:31 GMT Standard Time,
simon@xxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk writes:
frequently you get a collection of trees
that are nothing special individually, but which make a considerable
collective contribution to the landscape. Groups are likely to have
more conservation / ecological value than individuals. The BS is a
guide, there's nothing to stop you making a comment that the trees are
all Cs individually but that the group / copse / avenue warrants a B or
A. The logical approach might be to accept that some trees can go
provided the feature is retained in a reasonable form.
Its the same logic behind having group, woodland and area
classifications in TPOs
Bearing in mind Simon's considerably greater experience, than mine anyway;
the Area is supposed to be temporary and the group is supposed to specify
what's in the group. According to PPG9 woodland really means SNAW.
So it seems to me that the use of a TPO for Luke's collection of extremely
average trees doesn't really seem worthy of TPO. Thus the aforementioned
conciliatory approach is really the only way to get any sort of satisfaction
on that site?
And yes I do believe there's a gap in the legislation. There's a distinct
space between AONB, SLA, SSSI, CA, TPO. A lot of trees fall into these gaps
and they are probably very important to our landscape.
The landscape depends on a lot of people undertaking altruistic planting
and similar maintenance. Tricky I know.
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/
