UKTC Archive

Re: When is a veteran not an A3?

Subject: Re: When is a veteran not an A3?
From: Julian Morris
Date: Jan 05 2015 07:04:22
Noted, but every time this comes up the interpretation of 'amenity' seems to 
fall short of including biodiversity and 'cragginess'. As ever I find that 
statutes shoud be interpreted the way courts would do, which is not whether a 
definition can be stretched to include a situation but whether a situation 
falls naturally into a definition.

Expansion of the legal definition is where my professional sympathies lie. 
That is in my view the only way that society can express its desire for the 
reliable public appropriation of the worth of veteran trees.    

Julian A. Morris
Professional Tree Services
jamtrees.co.uk
highhedgesscotland.com
0141 XXX XXXX - 0778 XXX XXXX


Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2015 at 5:25 PM
From: "Gilbert Addison" <aardvark@xxxxxxxxxx.co.uk>
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Re: When is a veteran not an A3?

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/





-- 
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/