UKTC Archive

Re: Consultation on Welsh Law regarding trees

Subject: Re: Consultation on Welsh Law regarding trees
From: Julian Morris
Date: Jan 11 2019 08:49:08
I made representations, and although I was misquoted in the analysis Charles 
Mynors has subsequently apologised and I have corresponed with him on some of 
the detail that will be needed to make the loss of the 'nuisance' exemption 
work (principally the right to compensation including for loss in land 
value). As such. it is fab to have him there giving trees a really thorough 
non-political scrutiny. And there's a more general move to recognise it's the 
tree that's TPO'd, not the land it's standing on. Which makes sense and is in 
my view long overdue. I dont' think this would have been brought about but 
for CM's role.

The anglocentric view ("it's relevant because it will probably be adopted in 
England") is the same one the AA took. How about "it's relevant because trees 
need more protection" or "it's relevant because Wales planning law needs 
reform"? Thanks, England, we love you too!

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


Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 at 8:28 AM
From: "Bill Anderson" <anderson.arb.original@xxxxxx.com>
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Re: Consultation on Welsh Law regarding trees

I note that Dr Professor Sir Lord Saint Charles Mynors was part of the
review team Tim. Possibly this is why there's quite a bit of tree -related
stuff in there. Martin Goodall (Planning Law blogger) seems to think it's
relevant because it will probably be adopted in England, eventually, and
that it should be welcomed. (He probably wasn't just thinking about trees.)

As for the losing the nuisance exemption; the more I think about this the
more I realise it can't be any other way. Nuisance that's not tree-related
would have to be considered at the same time, and that seems to put a cat
among the pigeons to my way of thinking.

Bill.

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 17:18, Tim Moya <tim.moya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk>
wrote:

This is an old thread and Alistair's post is below.
I may have missed discussion of this as the final report was published in
November but I've only just realised. It's available here
https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/document/planning-law-in-wales-final-report/
There is a theory that the changes may be tested in Wales for introduction
in the rest of the UKthe rest of the UK

There is quite a bit on TPOs including:

- We recommend that the exemption from the need for consent under a tree
preservation order relating to works that are “necessary to prevent or
abate a
nuisance” (currently in section 198(6)(b) of the TCPA 1990) should not be
restated
either in the Act or in new trees regulations.

- We recommend that, when the regulations are next updated, consideration
should
be given to introducing a new exemption to allow the carrying out without
consent
of works to a tree protected by a woodland preservation order smaller than
a
specified size, but only where carried out for the sole purpose of
improving the
growth of other trees.

-We recommend that the offence under what is now section 210 of the TCPA
1990
(contravening tree preservation regulations) and under regulations made
pursuant
to the provision restating section 202A (prohibiting works to a tree
subject to a tree
preservation order) should be framed so as to require the prosecution to
prove that:
(1) a copy of the order had been served in accordance with the relevant
statutory requirements before the start of those works; or
(2) a copy of the order was available for public inspection at the time of
the
works.
We also recommend that the regulations should include, alongside the
requirement
to make the order available for inspection, a further requirement to
record on the
order the date on which it was first thus made available.

Tim Moya

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
<uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
On Behalf Of Alastair Durkin
Sent: 26 January 2018 10:39
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Consultation on Welsh Law regarding trees

Dear collective

I can't remember if this has already been mentioned but some may be aware
that Charles Mynors has recently been helping the Law Commission with a
complete reform of Welsh planning law. The ICF has forwarded me the trees
bit of the consultation today. There are some parts which would get my
broad approval, such as:


-          Clarification of the term 'wilful' to be replaced by 'reckless'
or 'intentional' when applied to TPO offences.

-          That all new 'area' orders cease to exist after 5 years (i.e.
they must be modified prior to confirmation)

-          Getting rid of the nuisance exemption (i.e clarification of
nuisance/mere encroachment of branches or roots)

-          Bringing in some sort of certificate of lawfulness for works to
trees (this could help with those tricky old TPO map issues that we have
recently been discussing)

There is loads of stuff to look at and discuss. However, I am really
surprised by one of the suggestions that the consultation has come up 
with:

After clarifying at 15.46 that woodland TPOs should apply to all trees
within the woodland, irrespective of their age, the consultation then goes
on to propose at 15.84 that there should be an exemption for removal of
saplings from a woodland, ostensibly because it's a pain to make an
application when you might want to clear undergrowth that may or may not
have saplings growing within it. Now to me this disrupts the whole point 
of
a woodland TPO, which is to protect the woodland as an ongoing entity. It
seems to me that if they were so inclined a landowner progressively clear 
a
protected woodland by the systematic removal of regeneration. If anybody
thinks my interpretation is incorrect then I would be grateful for
clarification, but this particular proposal concerns me. I will be
personally responding to the consultation, and I would encourage others to
do so too.

Of course at the moment this affects Wales only, but I see no reason why
the same ideas might not cross over to England, Scotland and Northern
Ireland.

Alastair

[Tandridge Logo]
Tandridge District Council
The Council Offices
Station Road East
Oxted,Surrey
RH8 0BT

Tel : 01883 XXXXXX
Fax: 01883 XXXXXX
www.tandridge.gov.uk<http://www.tandridge.gov.uk>



Alastair Durkin
Senior Tree Officer
Planning Development Management
adurkin@xxxxxxxxxx.gov.uk<mailto:adurkin@xxxxxxxxxx.gov.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/