UKTC Archive

RE: Area TPO

Subject: RE: Area TPO
From: Jim Quaife
Date: Nov 04 2019 09:48:29
Logically, as the concept of TPO protection of woodland (which is the only 
TPO which exists in perpetuity) includes the safeguarding of the regenerative 
capability, it follows that Palm Developments came to the correct decision.  
In the Blue Book there was a footnote saying that the status of saplings was 
uncertain, but since Palm the matter is clarified.
Of course his does not apply pedantically because cutting a ride where a 
seedling may have grown should not require TPO consent.  Similarly as one is 
not allowed to allow unauthorised work to trees, mounting a prosecution 
because a deer or rabbit has eaten a seedling would (I hope) not be realistic 
(although I would pay to attend the court proceedings!!). 
I know of three TPO woodlands where the 1987 storm resulted in complete 
clearance of the blown area (the larger part of the woodland remaining), and 
subsequently no replanting but with pasture having been nurtured so that they 
have been regularly grazed by horses for the last 30 years, yet the TPOs have 
not been modified.  The horse owners are technically allowing the destruction 
of trees on a regular basis!
Alastair mentions the inappropriateness of making a TPO on barren land, and 
clearly that is right, but a long-standing concern of mine (with which Peter 
Annett was unable to make headway) is where a TPO is made upon emerging 
(first generation) scrub woodland on bare land.  This in effect achieves a 
land use change in planning terms on the potential say-so of one officer, yet 
any other land use status change requires due process, either in policy terms 
or by making a successful planning application.
Although interpretation is always required with TPOs, this is really the only 
"wobbly" part left. I suspect that it will need a decision of a higher court 
to resolve it.

-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of Alastair Durkin
Sent: 04 November 2019 09:01
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: RE: Area TPO

Tom, you sent me down a rabbit hole.

I think the thing is that you have asked your question the wrong way around. 
If a TPO protects individual trees, groups of trees or areas of trees  - it 
stands to reason that this only applies to actual trees - not trees that may 
grow in the future. Protecting 'trees' is the intended purpose of a TPO after 
all. Otherwise you could just randomly protect an area of barren land in the 
hope that trees may one day grow and become protected. 

To my mind your question should have been "where does it say that 'woodland' 
TPOs protect trees that are yet to grow?". The answer to that is nowhere in 
statute - it is all in case law - specifically confirmed I think in Evans v 
Waverley BC [1995] (although it was assumed earlier than this I think), and 
then again in Palm Developments v Sec of State. Mynors 2nd ed (p587 & 588 is 


-----Original Message-----
From: <> 
On Behalf Of
Sent: 03 November 2019 16:27
To: UK Tree Care <>
Subject: Area TPO

Dear All


I have the link to the Tree Regs below.



I may be missing it but can someone clarify where it states that Area TPO's 
only cover the trees that are present at the time of serving?


Sincerely Tom

I S Tom Thompson (known as Tom) BSc (Hons) Arb, MSc eFor, MArborA

Principal Arboricultural Consultant

Arbor Cultural Ltd

36 Central Avenue, West Molesey, Surrey, KT8 2QZ


M 07899 XXXXXX

E  <>

W  <>


The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy

The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy

The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy