Reply in body of text.
On 12 Mar 2012, at 09:44, luke steer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I agree with you in many situations and I've seen too many naff
trees protected with TPOs when development was proposed.
MS: I agree to an extent. I've seen a lot of very poor trees TPOd by
others in two LPAs I've worked for. However, these trees have
contributed to canopy cover and can be replaced by better stock.
However if the owner doesn't get around to applying to remove them,
then when reviewed, these trees are removed from the new TPO.
However, I've also seen areas that once contained many trees that
now have few to the detriment of their visual character. Most were
probably not exceptional but collectively, over many properties,
they created a pleasant place.
MS: I agree that without control, many housing estates are bereft of
trees, much to the detriment of the visual amenity of these places.
It occurs to me that CA status reduces this erosion of tree cover.
MS: It appears to me that this is the case. It would be nice if
someone had the time to research whether this is actually the case.
How about 'Tree Conservation Areas'? New legislation and increases
in TO work load designating them but, potentially, it could help
slow the erosion of urban tree cover.
MS: Good idea. I'm not so sure it would entail as much work as
surveying trees for individual TPOs, especially reviews of old large
I believe that this type of thing occurred with the original TPOs in
the way that Paul describes. Currently TPOs may not be the correct
tools, unless you're prepared to serve an Area Order and re-serve it
periodically, potentially every five years.
MS: Maybe. More onerous for the tree owner, as the application process
is potentially more difficult than a notification process, however
easier for LPAs as refusing an app or issuing permission for lesser
works is certainly less time consuming than making a TPO for S211s
which you want to retain. Why would you re-serve an area order every
five years? Surely reviewing an area order would be for the purpose of
keeping the decent trees and ignorring the crap, by protecting the
decent trees as individuals?
By the way the ATF meeting was brill and we discussed TPOs there.
If you weren't there you missed out!
MS: Glad the weather was good and there were good discussions on a
variety of subjects, including protection of trees. Pity you missed
the drink in Ruabon after Wynnstay. Three hardy souls managed a pint
of ale, before heading their seperate ways. You missed a good eifel
tower oak on the shores of the fishing lake as well. Hope you liked
the rest of the trees?
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:email@example.com
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre