TPO`S

[Dennis]

You can download the book that Tracy flagged up. It has a "Chapter 4 Varying and Revoking Tree Preservation Orders" (page 22). This states [at 4.1]" LPAs have powers to vary or revoke their TPOs." It goes on to give examples. At first glance this is a book that will repay careful study, if only to argue with the LA from the same guidance that they should be using.

[greyman]

See, it's all in the detail - we don't have any TPO's (YET) but I'll be taking a look at this stuff - if only to get a bit of background!

Off out to join Tracy at the Bentley Wildfowl Woodfair today - hoping the predicted weavva doesn't arrive!

Be safe out there chaps,

tally ho!

Greyman

[docsquid]

Dennis - thank you for pulling that out of the book. We were told you definitely couldn't revoke a TPO but perhaps that was just the LPA being rather lazy. It is also interesting that the Woodland Management Plan and work agreed under WIG's supercedes the TPO. We were told (by the LPA) you still have to put in a TPO Works application even if it is already approved under the WMP/WIG! In fact we have just completed a TPO Works application to do normal woodland management stuff that we are obliged to so under the management plan (remove sycamore, establish coppice, thinning etc). Be interesting to see if they respond as they should do that approval is not required :-)

[wood troll]

Sounds like you have a lazy/incompetent/jobsworth council officer. If memory serves me right from my councillor days it is up to the planning commitee to remove TPOs paying due respect to the relevant (out of his) tree officer's advice (though not having to follow it). Have you thought of talking to the councillor who's patch covers your wood? Officers don't like councillors hasling them!

wood troll

[docsquid]

The answer is usually "No" and then they ask what the question was :-)

I think in the long term the TPO is probably a good thing - we won't be managing this wood forever and it would be better to know that whoever buys it can't chop all the trees down and build an industrial estate there. But it would be helpful if they knew that if we have a WMP/WIG then we don't need TPO works for the normal woodland management stuff!

[tracy]

There is a consultation going on about TPO's - so here is your chance to speak up!

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/treestreamliningconsult

[Dennis]

It is worth looking at the consultation document. Look very carefully at paragraph 11 of the Draft Regulations (on page 27 of the PDF), even if you skim the rest. This deals with the revocation of TPOs. It has several weaknesses:

1. It does not say who takes the initiative to obtain a revocation — the authority or the tree owner.

2. It does not say what factors justify or militate against a revocation.

3. It does not specify an application procedure for tree owners.

4. It does not set out an appeals procedure against refusals.

No doubt other points will occur to readers. The document's overall weakness is that it looks to this retired civil servant like the result of a desk exercise by people who have never visited a wood to understand managment issues. Unless there are changes to cover these points we shall continue to be hampered in any attempt at good management by the arbitrary whims of our local tree officers.

I would urge all of you to write in and make representations on this paragraph if on nothing else. Perhaps SWOG or woodlands.co.uk could do that too, (knowing that the latter have had interesting moments with authorities in E Sussex at least).

[adam]

Thanks for pointing out this consultation exercise for TPOs.

I've gone through it and provided my feedback ... although I doubt it will be exactly what they were expecting ;-) At the very least, it made me feel better for having my say although I'm not particularly optimistic that it will change anything.

It would be great if more of us here would respond even if you don't (yet) have the helpful arm of government protecting your woodland. It would be even better if SWOG could respond as an organisation, especially since some of the proposals (for example compensation limits) have a more significant limit on the small woodland owner.

Adam.

[tracy]

Great idea Adam

Anyone here fancy writing something on behalf of the SWOG members? How about lots of us write our thoughts on the forum (or email privately to one of the team) and we can use it ... we can't write something on your behalf if we don't know enough about what you think. Perhaps at the next few meetings it could be something that is discussed?

[Nickl]

Most of us aren't troubled by TPOs but for those who are, this consultation isn't about the law being changed so much as the procedures. So it disappoints. I filled it in just so I could say (at the end there's a space) how arbitrary the system can be in practice when a TPO is made without adequate reason and without adequate explanation.

There's a useful and surprisingly human outline of the law at http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/tposguide.pdf which tells local authorities how they should behave. Useful to remind them if you have a problem.