UKTC Archive

Re: When is a veteran not an A3?

Subject: Re: When is a veteran not an A3?
From: Gilbert Addison
Date: Jan 04 2015 17:25:53
It's only 'established' until somebody's opinion is swayed to the alternative. The law allows for the preservation of trees by TPO in the interests of amenity - a quality that is not defined in the Act whatever it may say in any guidance. Common interpretations of amenity are: 'a collection of pleasurable circumstances' or more simply 'all the benefits that accrue'. In my opinion, biodiversity value and/or aesthetic cragginess, what have you, are not excluded from these descriptions and it is incumbent on sympathetic professionals to argue the case or aid and abet the loss of this irreplaceable resource.

Julian Morris wrote:

I don't know why I am bothering to reply further on this, but I feel I should 
clarify that it has been established rightly or wrongly that TPOs are not for 
preserving biodiversity, habitat etc., only for amenity. LAs that are 
following the letter of the law have no remit to refuse removals solely 
because of loss of veteran characteristics, hence they cannot prosecute for 
the valid use of an exemption, no matter how notable the tree is in veteran 
terms.

Add that to what I previously suggested, i.e. that a tree can be declining rapidly due to a defect that is not the one that caused it to develop veteran characteristics, and it is prety clear that B3s and even C3s and certainly Us and exempted veterans can and do exist. Then consider whether a LA could refuse a planning application because it involved the removal of a declining veteran. Would that be intra vires? I personally doubt it.




--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/