UKTC Archive

RE: Area TPO

Subject: RE: Area TPO
From: admin
Date: Nov 05 2019 01:42:38
Thanks Bill

The Area in question is 30 odd years old, so not the 1950's example that you 
cite, but still an element of guess work

From the online guidance;

"When should the area category be used?
The area category is one way of protecting individual trees dispersed over an 
area. Authorities may either protect all trees within an area defined on the 
Order’s map or only those species which it is expedient to protect in the 
interests of amenity.
The area category is intended for short-term protection in an emergency and 
may not be capable of providing appropriate long-term protection. The Order 
will protect only those trees standing at the time it was made, so it may 
over time become difficult to be certain which trees are protected. 
Authorities are advised to only use this category as a temporary measure 
until they can fully assess and reclassify the trees in the area. In 
addition, authorities are encouraged to resurvey existing Orders which 
include the area category.
Paragraph: 029 Reference ID: 36-029-20140306
Revision date: 06 03 2014"

I have not seen the trees but I have been assured that the client is not 
concerned about again borderline tree, but some significantly younger regen 
in this case.



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
T 0333 XXX XXXX
M 07899 XXXXXX
E admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk
W www.arbor-cultural.co.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info <uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info> 
On Behalf Of Bill Anderson
Sent: 04 November 2019 19:26
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Re: Area TPO

My interpretation of it Tom has always been, which really means since the 
revised Blue Book in 2000 (or 1999?) is that an Area Order protects only that 
which was growing there at the time the Order was served. The advice since 
then is that the Area Order should be treated as a temporary measure until a 
more detailed Order can be drawn up. Not that I've ever seen an Area Order 
reviewed and I've even seen cases where Area Orders from the 50s are 
considered as still pertinent. Charles Mynors seems to agree with this and 
even goes so far as to say that if you can find an "Interim Preservation 
Order" (served before the 1947 Planning Act introduced TPOs) that it might 
still be enforceable... (Yes I've got one that's still being relied upon!)  
As Alastair says, paragraph 29 seems fairly explicit. I don't think Case Law 
has altered this.
As to Jim's Palm Developments' case, I thought that related to an area of 
something that couldn't really be described as woodland. Colin Bashford was 
quite annoyed about it at the time. IIRC Colin said it was trees growing on 
top of old warehouse buildings or somesuch, which meant that the trees were 
unsafe to get anywhere near, for fear of the decrepit structures collapsing. 
(We had a job once where trees had grown over the top of an old coke oven, 
which was home to a colony of bats. English Heritage had listed it and wanted 
the trees removing lest they caused the structure to collapse, so they wanted 
the trees felling without anyone walking on it.
Summerley Coke Ovens if anyone's interested.) Anyway Colin thought that the 
decision was iffy but he and Charles (I think) had declared the decision too 
expensive to challenge.
I think it could be argued that NPPF, in its blathering about trees and 
woodlands and biodiversity, is almost arguing that "woodland" ought to mean 
SNAW, or at the very least "established secondary woodland."
Moray rolled up in Rotherham a few years ago; to object to a Woodland TPO 
that had been served on a field that had been allowed to become overgrown.
I thought that TPO was downright cheek as it was clearly a field and I think 
Alastair's comment about the TPO system not allowing anyone to serve an Order 
on a random bit of land in order to turn it into woodland sometime in the 
future is very pertinent. Planning guidance used to talk about "land 
reverting to nature" but I don't think that form of words actually pops up in 
NPPF.
As Alastair says; "down a rabbit hole...."
Bill.

On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 at 18:42, <admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk> wrote:

Dear Alistair

Clearly not worded very well, and for that I apologise.

I had informed a client that an area only covered trees there at the 
time of serving as opposed to a woodland.
He had asked for evidence.  I assumed it was all in the latest tree 
regs but I couldn’t find it.

Jon steered me to the online guidance, hopefully to satisfy my client, 
although OI haven’t heard one way or the other.

So the all encompassing new (ish) regs don’t mention this one way or 
the other then and it is all down to case law.  Is that correct?

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 T 0333 XXX XXXX M 
07899 XXXXXX E admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk W www.arbor-cultural.co.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
<uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
On Behalf Of Alastair Durkin
Sent: 04 November 2019 09:01
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
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 helpful.

Alastair

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
<uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
On Behalf Of admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk
Sent: 03 November 2019 16:27
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Area TPO

Dear All



I have the link to the Tree Regs below.



http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/605/made





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

T 0333 XXX XXXX

M 07899 XXXXXX

E  <mailto:admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk> admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk

W  <http://www.arbor-cultural.co.uk/> www.arbor-cultural.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/