UKTC Archive

RE: Saving trees

Subject: RE: Saving trees
From: Howe, Ron
Date: Oct 11 2018 08:42:46
Following on from Alastair's comment. Putting woodland aside, if the trees 
are not protected by a CA or TPO then there is no offence ... they may remove 
the trees. What is worth bearing in mind and something I have always brought 
to the table is that pre-emptive felling could seriously prejudice any 
proposed development. The only statutory control you have is to make a 'C' 
TPO requiring trees to be planted and, to follow that up with a Tree 
Replacement Notice. But, you should not be obstructive where the development 
might otherwise be acceptable.

Ron Howe
Tree Officer (Planning)
Mole Valley District Council
Tel. 01306 XXX XXX

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
[mailto:uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info] On Behalf Of John Hearne
Sent: 11 October 2018 09:31
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: Saving trees

Alastair, your approach is probably the best that can be achieved. It also
explains why developers ask me what a particular tree officer is like.

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 9:17 AM Alastair Durkin <ADurkin@xxxxxxxxxx.gov.uk>
wrote:

Hi Charlie, I'm not sure what legal mechanism you are referring to. If the
trees are TPO'd then they have statutory protection and yes, potentially if
an offence has been committed then the developer could be retrospectively
fined. The Forestry Act also allows for prosecution, although these days
it’s more likely to be a restocking notice in my experience, and even then
it doesn't apply to a garden curtilage. There is no mechanism in law to
retrospectively fine somebody for legally felling trees that they own, or
that they have the landowners permission to remove.

In my experience the best way to avoid pre-emptive felling is for the LPA
to do its best to work proactively with the developer; being an open shop
and meeting them on site to discuss options, not protecting trees that can
be replaced, or that are of low value (for the purposes of BS5837 or TPO).
In this way a position of trust can be developed. Yes, you might lose some
trees on some sites, but you are much less likely to encourage pre-emptive
felling. You also end up making far fewer TPOs! Once you have agreed a
scheme with the best trees retained and areas designed into the scheme for
replanting then you can TPO the retained trees to ensure compliance with
the tree protection condition. The developer won't mind at that stage
because they have already got their planning permission.

This approach doesn't work every time, but it works far more times than
not.

Cheers

Alastair


-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info [mailto:
uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Charlie Ashworth
Sent: 10 October 2018 21:28
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: Saving trees

Isn't there a way of retrospectively fining developers for loss of trees
within a set time period prior to the submission of a development
application?  You need relevant evidence I suppose?


On 10 Oct 2018, at 19:39, Charles Bennett <
charlesbennett1959@xxxxxxxxxxx.com> wrote:

Every developer is different. If they're of the mind to do the ring
barking pre-app, so be it. But you are suggesting that the LPA should
not be able to protect trees post pre-app/application where important
trees are threatened.

Developer post pre-app/app; I want to put my drive here.
LPA; Tthat will destroy the most important trees.
Developer; Let me think about it.
Developer; No problem, I felled the trees.
LPA; Ok so you can put your drive there now.
Developer; There are a couple of trees here that are stopping me
building another unit.
LPA; They're very important trees now, since the loss of the ones
where the drive is, can we keep them.
Developer; Let me think.
Developer; Ok I've felled the trees. Are there any more important
trees that I need to fell before the 12 month moritorium on imposing a
TPO lapses and you can protect the trees in the public interest. I
need to know so I can fell them. Otherwise I'll fell everything. Maybe
I'll just fell everything anyway.

John
Removing/restricting the LPA's ability to protect trees in the public
interest, is not in the public interest.

There will always be those who bend the rules and take advantage. But
your suggestion to stop them doing so won't.

Charles

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018, 17:26 John Hearne, <johnhearne7@xxxxxx.com> wrote:

Charles - in your devious developer scenario, rather than submit a
pre-app, he can currently simply ring bark everything at weekend. And
that's what happens.

As to material constraints Tim, only at full app stage and the
unwanted trees can be removed by then.

As to changes to the legislation...if something doesn't work, it
needs fixing. Ok my idea is half baked, but there is currently a
genuine incentive to fell unprotected trees even when the developer
would prefer to keep what he could without losing too much profit.
That can't be the intended result of tree preservation legislation.

John



On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 4:40 PM John Hearne <johnhearne7@xxxxxx.com>
wrote:

Fair enough Charles. It's just frustrating when the developer wnats
to retain trees but dare not because they will marginally conflict
with 5837 recommendations and he'd lose too much value on the site
to reduce the number of units or footprints. It is happening.

John

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 4:36 PM Charles Bennett <
charlesbennett1959@xxxxxxxxxxx.com> wrote:

Now I wouldn't suggest that developers are devious, but...

Might they not put in a pre-app on a site which is covered in trees
of very high amenity, and on which you would never get permission
because of the trees. Or any site with trees on it. Then you start
felling then/topping them at your leisure so that within a year
there's no amenity left.

What amenity. Now they can build on the site without the hinderence
of those pesky trees.

No need to discuss retaining any trees, never mind the best, at
all. No need for arb consultants, no need for tree officers.

Your suggested change would seem to defeat the object of protecting
trees
for the benefit of the community. It would also require a radical
shift away, not to mention changes to primary legislation, from the
current position set out in s197 TCPA.

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018, 14:37 John Hearne, <johnhearne7@xxxxxx.com>
wrote:

I've had a brainwave. If the law prevented service of TPOs for a
specified
time, perhaps 12 months, after any application or pre-app for
development -
I think it would save a lot of trees from pre-emptive felling by
developers
and allow a sensible time for negotiation to retain the best trees
to enhance a site.

Tin hat on.

John

--

Hearne Arboriculture

www.hearnearboriculture.com



--
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/



--

Hearne Arboriculture

www.hearnearboriculture.com



--

Hearne Arboriculture

www.hearnearboriculture.com



--
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/

Charlotte Ashworth MArborA


www.tree-care.org.uk
charlie@xxxxxxxxxx.org.uk
Mobile: 07812 XXX XXX
Office: 01270 XXX XXX










--
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/



--

Hearne Arboriculture

www.hearnearboriculture.com



--
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/
Important: If you currently use a gsi-family domain name (gsi.gov.uk, 
gcsx.gov.uk or gsx.gov.uk) you must replace it with a government domain like 
gov.uk, gov.scot, llyw.cymru or gov.wales by March 2019.


This email is only intended for the individual or organisation to whom or 
which it is addressed and may contain, either in the body of the email or 
attachment/s, information that is personal, confidential and/or subject to 
copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that copying or 
distributing this message, attachment/s or other files associated within this 
email, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, 
please notify the sender immediately and then delete it.



-- 
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/