UKTC Archive

RE: TPO Designations

Subject: RE: TPO Designations
From: Tim Moya
Date: Dec 23 2015 17:23:51
It's a fair point Jon but for me there are two issues.
- councils should deal with objections to tpos by addressing them properly. 
The judgement spells this out clearly.
- a woodland too protects the woodland as a whole so any encroachment can be 
seen as damaging the woodland. An area tpo protects individual trees within 
an area and any development can be balanced against the value of the trees. 
In this case mainly scrub.

Tim Moya - sent from my phone
________________________________
From: Jon<mailto:j.heuch@xxxxxxxxxxx.com>
Sent: ‎23/‎12/‎2015 12:17 PM
To: UK Tree Care<mailto:uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: RE: TPO Designations

Dairy Crest V LB Merton
An interesting case but what was the end result?
TPO 665 with W1 has morphed into TPO 680 covering T1 and A1........sounds 
like a lot of (legal) effort with no practical effect, considering that 
development plans are afoot?
It would be interesting to see what the two TPOs cover (i.e. their plans). 
Has an objection to the new TPO been lodged (without the issue of woodland)?
Jon


--
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/