UKTC Archive

Re: Post-planning enforcement period tree failures

Subject: Re: Post-planning enforcement period tree failures
From: Bill Anderson
Date: Mar 03 2021 15:06:23
1. Tree Officers haven't got time to deal with the TPOs they've already
got. Giving them a load more default-TPOs is unlikely to be helpful.
2. Just because you've planted something, it doesn't mean it's ever going
to be TPO-worthy.  Significant "amenity value" ought to mean more than
simply commonplace.
3. I've never particularly understood the landscape requirements that go
with planning applications; I mean what's the point of demanding a
landscape plan when the new resident can simply dig it all up and put down
astro-flipping-turf once he's moved in. Especially as half the landscape
plans I ever see are more suited to a supermarket car park than a desirable
residence. I'd like urban landscapes to be better, but precisely how you
enforce that I do not know. My libertarian tendencies mean I'd prefer
people to have better landscapes because that's what they want, not because
Kim Jong Johnson has demanded it.

Bill

On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 at 12:25, Alastair Durkin <ADurkin@xxxxxxxxxx.gov.uk>
wrote:

Hi John

This would be my take:

1. TPOs have two tests, 'amenity' and 'expediency'. In general it is
always best to follow Government Guidance in relation to legal statute, and
the guidance states:

"What does ‘expedient’ mean in practice?
Although some trees or woodlands may merit protection on amenity grounds
it may not be expedient to make them the subject of an Order. For example,
it is unlikely to be necessary to make an Order in respect of trees which
are under good arboricultural or silvicultural management."

The guidance does go on to advise that the risk may not be immediate and
that general 'development pressures' may be taken into account, but the
first position is that if the trees are not under threat then a TPO is
unlikely to be expedient. As such, if trees are shown to be retained on the
plans, and it is clear that significant consideration has been given to
their protection through the development process, AND there is unlikely to
be any ongoing significant pressure on them, then it is unlikely that a TPO
will be made. However, certainly from my point of view, TPOs tend to be
made in relation to development more often than any other reason, and this
is usually because the aforementioned respect for the tree has not been as
forthcoming as one might hope.

2. No, but of course there tends to be more scrutiny on trees within a
planning context. We can make a TPO on trees that are yet to be planted as
part of a planning condition, as you will no doubt be aware, but at the
same time it's vital that the presence of the tree and the amenity value it
will provide is properly considered. Otherwise an application to remove the
tree may well be successful if it's position and species has been poorly
designed for example, as its current level of amenity will be low and it
will not require vast levels of justification to outweigh a tree of low
amenity value. Whilst it should not be an issue, there are also frequently
resourcing issues associated with making lots of TPOs, so officers tend to
pick their battles quite carefully if that is a localised problem.

3. Yes. No. Its vitally important, and I probably spend more time arguing
with developers over landscaping than I do about how they have considered
retained trees.

Others will have different views no doubt. After all, it is up to the
individual LPA to decide when and why it might be expedient in the
interests of amenity to make a TPO.

Nevertheless, I hope the above helps.

Alastair





-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
<uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
On Behalf Of "john.cooban"
Sent: 03 March 2021 12:04
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Post-planning enforcement period tree failures


Hello; some questions mainly for Tree Officers, I suppose, prompted by
another incidence of post-planning enforcement period failure and/or
disappearance of trees just a few more than five years on from completion
of development.

1. Why is it that trees that shown on planting (and/or tree protection)
plans approved to satisfy planning conditions, shouldn't be subject to an
automatic default consideration of TPO status?
2. Is there a difference between a future amenity benefit sought from
trees shown on an approved 'landscaping scheme' and the level of amenity
necessarily attributable to a tree for a TPO outside the context of a
planning development?
3. Shouldn't 'planning' shouldn't be far more discerning regarding the
landscape elements of schemes that really merit conditioning for longer
term benefit? Does a tree shown on an approved planting plan have only the
same status in planning as, say, the daffodil bulb scheduled on the same
plan to be planted nearby?

Any answers / thoughts gratefully received.

Kind regards

John Cooban
Crawley, West Sussex.




--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and
Stockholm Tree Pits https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and
Stockholm Tree Pits
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk




-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and
Stockholm Tree Pits
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk