UKTC Archive

RE: Area TPO

Subject: RE: Area TPO
From: Jim Quaife
Date: Nov 05 2019 08:23:01
The difficulty with Palm was that although trees had "invaded" (naturally 
regenerated) a derelict industrial site, it certainly had the appearance of 
woodland.  It invoked my concern that a TPO on a first generation woodland is 
a surreptitious land status change, but the status of the Palm was debatable 
as 'abandoned' in any event.
There were aspects of the Palm decision that were, er ... food for thought, 
but the clarity of the definition of a tree in a woodland TPO is finally 
useful - and accords with the botanical definition.   Logically this 
translates outside woodlands but I guess that it would be a matter for 
lawyers to chew over!
I had to disagree with Colin Bashford (chatting with him) because having 
walked over the entire site I couldn't see any trees that were "unsafe". 
As with any law there is a need for interpretation - if there were not then 
we wouldn't need lawyers!! 
Jim


-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
[mailto:uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Bill Anderson
Sent: 04 November 2019 19:26
To: UK Tree Care
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/