What I meant by my last comment was this:
If an LPA relies on enquiries about tree felling in order to serve a TPO, they
(in my opinion) have missed the point.
I believe TPOs shouldn't be administered in a reactive manner, although I do
concede that for most LAs the limiting factor is personnel and resources
rather
than a lack of will or understanding.
If only arboricultural officers that are charged with preserving urban trees
could deal out TPOs based on a proactive approach of surveying their patch and
identifying key trees - much like a landscape character assessment. Sure,
this
is a large task and would need to be repeated or reviewed periodically, but at
least everyone would know where they stand then. TPOs could be posted online
without the nagging fear of "what about all the other trees that we don't know
about" being in danger.
I realise there is an issue of 'expediancy' with this approach but that seems
to be down to interpretation of the guidance. Section 3.5 of the guidance
suggests a precautionary approach can be appropriate.
If TOs could happily list their TPOs online after a proactive survey, they
would have more time to spend on enforcement and site monitoring, both of
which
seem to be a consistent point of failure!
--
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/
