Hi Bill
As I said discussions are two way. Whilst it's not unknown for me to talk to
myself, (and rock back and forth in my chair in the foetal position), it
doesn't resolve anything. But if the recipient of the TPO doesn't want to
talk there's nothing anyone can do. If the trees have been assessed as
meriting protection, then they merit protection. If the TPO was withdrawn and
the trees felled resulting in a loss of amenity wouldn't this be
maladministration. It shall be the duty of.......
Why shouldn't the owner of a protected tree justify themselves when they want
to destroy something that is of benefit to the wider community. They have to
anyway on the 1App form whether you like it or not. We've got 1App, we have
to use it, that's just the way it is.
Some Inspectors are very competent, experienced and qualified
arboriculturalist, and are perfectly capable of making a judgement on the
merits of an application to work on a protected tree, or the value of trees
within a development. Whilst you have every right to request how you want
your clients appeal to be heard I'm surprised you weren't allowed to attend
the Committee meeting. It's public, who stopped you. I'm interested in the
comment that the Committee ignored the Officers advice. Especially as I got
the distinct impression the Committee was just a rubber stamp for the
Officers "decision". I think it was Moray who said that we advise and others
make the decisions, and that's the way it works. We provide professional
advice to the lay members who make up the Committee. They can take it or
leave it, as can anyone else we provide advice to.
The defining of expediency and amenity is the reason we have all the various
ways and means of quantifying and deciding if a tree merits protection.
People will spin the definitions to suit their, or their Clients needs. As
TO's we have to take a more objective view and try and apply some reasoned
consistency.
Anyway I'm off to Glossop now to see my mum and dad, just as the dutiful son
should. So have a good one
Charles Bennett
Landscape Architect/Tree Officer
Economic Development
Carlisle City Council
Civic Centre
Carlisle CA3 8QG
Direct Dial: (01228) XXXXXX
Email: charlesb@xxxxxxxxx.gov.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: andersonarb@xxxx.com [mailto:andersonarb@xxxx.com]
Sent: 23 December 2011 13:54
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: Basis for TPO's
Oh Charles,
what discussions? There aren't any IME. (which is a system failing, not a TO
failing) Also, most Officers (Legal/Planning not particularly TOs) are
reluctant to back down on a TPO once they've gone to the trouble of serving
it. If they did, this would be tantamount to admitting they've been
time-wasting... No?
Frequently the Tree Owner doesn't want to cut down the tree, he just doesn't
want to justify himself should he decide he does, he also doesn't want to
waste his time with the useless 1app form. Probably. At this point I should
say that I've only ever objected to TPOs served as a result of development
applications. In fact I can't think of seeing any recent TPO for any other
reason. (I accept entirely that most developers don't want to cut down trees,
they just want to cut all the branches off and all the roots!)
I've also no real confidence that PiNS are completely competent to understand
the TPO system. I discussed one of my cases with Peter Annett (when still in
office) who raised his eyebrows at the procedure they'd adopted. I think
that's as critical as a Government man's ever likely to get. FWIW it I've
just instigated an appeal and I'm opting for an informal hearing. With fast
track having replaced written reps, there's no other way of responding to the
spurious matters that Joe and Joanna had put before the Committee. (Who
didn't allow me to attend and who ignored the Officers' advice.)
As to your TPO tests. Expediency; is it going to make any difference would be
a reasonable question. That is will the tree just be left alone as it has
been previously or still be pruned as it has been regularly. If the answer is
yes then it's not expedient. (not seeing a TPO for anything beond development
clearly influences this.)
Amenity? All trees, even dead ones have some amenity. A miniscule number of
trees are actually hazardous these might be said to have negative amenity.
Even a Kilmarnock Willow monstrosity has some amenity..... The question is
how much amenity should it have? You've got to draw a line somewhere, I'd say
it ought to be above average. I accept entirely that a tree with supremely
typical form might be above average, and that a tree with extremely atypical
form might also be above average. The Blue Book only implies that it should
be above average ("the mere fact that a tree is visible is insufficient"
3.3(2)).
I did stick my two penn'orth in to the recent consultation, probably a sight
more than two penn'orth in fact. FWIW The past Chairman of the AA told me
that I was the only contractor in the country to bother responding to the
consultation on the 1app form!
Bill.
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Bennett <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxx.gov.uk>
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Sent: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 12:33
Subject: RE: Basis for TPO's
--
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/
______________________________________________________________________
Carlisle City Council has scanned this e-mail and its attachments to ensure
that they are virus free.
Any problems should be reported to the IT help Desk on 01228 XXXXXX
______________________________________________________________________
Think before you print. In the interests of saving paper, only print this
e-mail if really necessary.
________________________________
Carlisle City Council’s priorities are the local environment and the local
economy This e-mail and its attachments may include confidential information
or protectively marked material up to RESTRICTED, should be handled
accordingly and is solely for use by the intended recipient(s). If you have
received this e-mail and its attachments in error please notify the sender
immediately delete them and do not disclose, copy, distribute or retain any
part of them. The views and opinions expressed by the author are not
necessarily those of Carlisle City Council. Carlisle City Council has scanned
this e-mail and its attachments to ensure that they are virus free. The
Council can take no responsibility if a virus is actually present and you are
advised to make the appropriate checks to confirm that they are virus free..
--
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/
