No change needed.....the last sentence of para 3.5 of the blue book deals
expediency and strategic TPOs
I have to say I'm not convinced by the resources argument. IMO Paul B's
approach (as set out earlier in the thread) offers a much more resource
efficient use of TPOs.
From: Glyn Thomas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: UK Tree Care <email@example.com>
Sent: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 9:02
Subject: RE: Online TPOs
The thing you've got to consider is do TPOs actually make any difference? Is
their liberal distribution actually ever gonna make a difference to tree
cover? Undoubtedly at the micro-level preventing a dendrophobe from cutting
all his trees down makes sense, but overall do they make any desirable
I've got a couple of ongoing jobs where tree owners have been put off doing
anything by the TPO ("you can't do anything; it's got a TPO!"), and the
situation where some strategic removals would benefit the retained trees is
common place. Yes I know that a decent TO would permit or even encourage the
strategic removals, but simply isn't how TPOs are currently working.
And not all LAs have a TO, and when they delegate the work to an Artichoke or
a Contracts Manager, TPOs can definitely start to be counterproductive!
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre