UKTC Archive

Re: Consultation on a new Planning Code for Wales: comprehensive, but simpler(!?!)

Subject: Re: Consultation on a new Planning Code for Wales: comprehensive, but simpler(!?!)
From: Bill Anderson
Date: Dec 29 2017 12:52:18
I wouldn't want to be without a TPO system of some sort Alastair, but
frequently I see it being used  to prevent the renewal of the tree stock. I
realise that the people who demand TPOs are well-meaning, although some of
them are just being NIMBY, but I'm not at all convinced that any of the
people demanding tree protection are seeing the big picture. I certainly
see lots of nondescript trees protected, which frequently would be better
replaced. And as I say, these matters are often overseen by people who are
not Arbs, and then with hardly any interest in the management of urban tree
cover, and even less understanding.

BTW, I don't think there's much wrong with the TPO system we've got, it's
just that it's not used correctly.

Bill.

On 28 December 2017 at 16:34, Alastair Durkin <ADurkin@xxxxxxxxxx.gov.uk>
wrote:

Bill, I think that quite possibly in the past the mechanism of TPOs hasn't
really had a significant overall effect on national tree cover, but
increasingly our trees (and the space that they inhabit) are being squeezed
by planning policy looking for higher density development (particularly in
urban areas). As such I really think the system is worthwhile. We certainly
have a number of recent development sites (last ten years) that were it not
for a TPO or two, would only have newly planted trees and nothing mature at
all. I am absolutely sure of that.


-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info [mailto:uktc-request@lists.
tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Bill Anderson
Sent: 28 December 2017 16:00
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: Consultation on a new Planning Code for Wales: comprehensive,
but simpler(!?!)

As I've probably said before, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to serve
an Area Order in an emergency; the answer to the objection being "we'll
refine the Order when you've finished building." But so many LPAs serve
Area Orders and then forget about them, with the result that we've got old
Area Orders that are just completely unrelated to the situation the trees
now find themselves in. If the LPA upon receipt of an application were to
follow the guidance to make a decisions then this would be fine, but
they've not got a TO so they don't. And quite honestly the direction PINS
have taken means that you're not likely to get a very sensible decision at
appeal.

I further note that the proposed revisions don't seem to include anything
that might enable a tree owner to demand that the LPA properly follow
Government guidance, with the rather one-sided result that the LPA can
ignore the TPO system without anybody getting fined. Meanwhile Joe and
Joanna ignore the guidance and end up paying a fairly massive fine. I'd
like to see some system whereby the only way to get a TPO overturned isn't
via the High Court..... As things stand the dice are heavily weighted in
favour of Local Authorities, which would be fine if anybody could prove
that TPOs actually lead to improved tree cover and tree management, but
that's not my experience at all.

The situation you describe is not one with which I'm familiar, in such a
case it may be reasonable but that sort of thing doesn't seem to happen
much round my neck of the woods. (I suspect South Yorkshire is quite
different to Surrey, not to mention the people who inhabit the boroughs.)

Bill.

On 28 December 2017 at 13:33, Alastair Durkin <ADurkin@xxxxxxxxxx.gov.uk>
wrote:

Hi Bill

I'd not spotted that because I was only in the summary.

15.47(4) - I think it’s a good idea in theory, but I'll give you an
example where it is reasonable for an area order to be confirmed
(pretty much the only time we do). That is when we have made an area
TPO in order to protect the trees without drawing attention to
ourselves wandering around with a clipboard (due to potential for
clear felling prior to service if spotted), and subsequent to making
the order we are refused permission to enter the land to survey the
trees. Yes I realise we have rights of entry under s214B(1)(a), but
generally it's not worth the hassle or proportionate to get the police
involved if the owner is forceful in their refusal. In these limited
circumstances it is useful to be able to confirm an area order.

15.47(5) - That would be expensive, or result in lots of unprotected
trees, if they are talking about all historical area orders.


-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info [mailto:uktc-request@lists.
tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Bill Anderson
Sent: 28 December 2017 12:28
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: Consultation on a new Planning Code for Wales:
comprehensive, but simpler(!?!)

Hi Alastair. What do you think of the idea at 15.47 (4) which appears
to suggest that Area Orders have to be properly specified upon
confirmation or they lapse? And that old Area ones should lapse after
5 years? Should keep you TOs busy..... And what would that do to the
"Interim Preservation Order" from 1943 that is supposedly still in force
on one of my jobs?

For that matter where do they get the idea that Felling Licences,
conservation areas and TPOs "avoid overlapping control?" It seems to
me that the authors aren't entirely familiar with what goes on in the
real world... (Is Wales the real world?)

I've only scanned it and my comments on Welsh matters are of dubious
merit anyway, but it seems they're not changing much...

Bill.

On 28 December 2017 at 10:59, Alastair Durkin
<ADurkin@xxxxxxxxxx.gov.uk>
wrote:

Well this is very interesting (for sad people like me), thanks
Bettina. I assume this is what Charles Mynors has been working on
lately?

From the consultation paper summary for our little bit on trees -

15.5 (AD) Remove the nuisance exemption? That sounds reasonable.
Make an application and prove your case. If the Council doesn't
allow the tree to be removed when the evidence is proven then they
are liable for compensation as is already the case presumably.

15.6 (AD) Undertake works to a sapling without consent provided it
is below a certain size - ok, so what about the systematic depletion
of a protected woodland by the removal of saplings? I can see a
problem with this one - the devil will be in the detail.

15.7 (AD) At least this will force tardy LPAs to respond to simple
requests regarding trees within a reasonable timescale.

15.9 (AD) Can we have this in England too please!!!

15.10 (AD) I like both of these recommendations. Simplifies the
process and allows the validity/availability of the order to be
questioned outside the High Court (in certain circumstances).

15.11 (AD) I like these ideas too. Makes things easier for all
concerned.


Stephanie, in the unlikely event that you are reading this thread
between Christmas and New Year, do you have any views on these
proposals?

Cheers

Alastair

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info [mailto:uktc-request@lists.
tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Bettina Broadway-Mann
Sent: 22 December 2017 10:20
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Consultation on a new Planning Code for Wales:
comprehensive, but
simpler(!?!)

Morning,
for something to read after that massive Christmas dinner, you might
find the link below interesting (or not) -

https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/planning-law-in-wales/

Have a great festive time everyone,

all the best
Bettina



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

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


Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Save paper.

Visit http://www.tandridge.gov.uk for information about services,
online forms, payments and much more.

________________________________
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are
confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If
you have received this email in error, please inform the sender
immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make
copies
thereof.

This message has been scanned for viruses.



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

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