UKTC Archive

RE: Planning Conditions -v- TPO's

Subject: RE: Planning Conditions -v- TPO's
From: Paul Hawksford
Date: Mar 13 2012 13:15:44

Moray
 
My situation relates to twenty one early-mature Beech surrounding a property 
and at their closest of five metres from the side of the property. The 
conditions relate to the development of the property twelve years ago. The 
planning officer has stated that the owner can decide which two trees he 
would like to remove from the south side of the property and has agreed to 
let him remove six from the north side. No reasons where given for this 
decision. He also stated that the largest tree on site can be removed because 
it is very close to a wooden shed? 
 
My question is should the condition now be lifted and/or a TPO be put in 
place, but that begs the question why? The property is a farm house, some 
three miles from the nearest highway and is overlooked some two miles away by 
another farmhouse. Amenity can mean many things, but visual amenity is not an 
issue here as there isn't any (well except for the property owners)...
 

Paul Hawksford 
Principal Arboriculturist
______________________________

ARBOR CONSULTING - TREE SURVEYS, INSPECTIONS, ADVICE & REPORTS
260 Doury Road
Ballymena
County Antrim 
Northern Ireland
BT43 6TU
______________________________________________________________________

M: +44 (0)7746 817923  

E:  arborconsulting@xxxx.com

W: www.arborconsulting.co.uk


Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
______________________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: 

This e-mail communication may be intercepted for regulatory, quality control, 
or crime detection purposes as per the Regulation 
of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Act. This message is intended only for the use 
of authorised person(s) ("the intended recipient") 
to whom it is addressed. It may contain information that is privileged and 
confidential within the meaning of the applicable law. 
Accordingly any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this 
message or any of its content by any other person may 
constitute a breach of civil or criminal law and is strictly prohibited. If 
you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender 
as soon as possible. ARBOR CONSULTING and/or its associates do not warrant 
that any attachments are free from viruses or other defects and accept 
no liability for any losses resulting from infected e-mail transmissions. 
______________________________________________________________________

 


From: moray.arb@xxxxxxxxxxx.com
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:24:47 +0000
Subject: Re: Planning Conditions -v- TPO's
To: uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

Reply in body of text.

On 12 Mar 2012, at 09:44, luke steer <luketreescapes@xxxxxxxxxxx.com>
wrote:

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
area orders.

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?

Cheers

Moray




-- 
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/