Add Your Idea

Tree Preservation Orders-restoring natural justice

1 Comment 11th July 2010

 

Town & Country Planning Act 1990 – sections 197 -214 as amended

The Planning & Compensation Act 1991 (Section 23)

Forestry Act 1967 (as amended)

The Town & Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999

 

Tree Preservation Orders (TPO)

A Council can impose a TPO on privately owned trees  without the consent of their owners.  Such an Order  prevents the owners from doing anything whatsoever to the trees without the express permission of the Council.   The owners are warned   they will remain responsible for the trees and any damage  they may cause.  In short, the Council say, the owners still have a ‘duty of care’ and should the trees cause damage or continue to be a nuisance  they  will be held liable.

 

This is contrary to natural justice.   Why should   owners be held responsible for something that the Council has prevented them from remedying?  Surely the Council should accept responsibility and liability?

 

Example 

We own an ever green Lucombe oak.   A large part of its canopy is over  a Pre school  playground.  The school,  on health and safety grounds, wanted the tree removed because of the dangers it was posing to its infants aged 3 – 5  years.   Their reasons being that it drops small branches, dead leaves (all year round  being an ever green)  small acorns and birds excrement into their  playground.  As owners of the tree we made the application but the Council refused  its removal and made it the subject of  a TPO.   Even the  Council’s Arboricultural  Officer,  having objected to its removal,  agreed  about its danger and nuisance  describing it as causing   “inconvenience all year round  due to leaf cast ,  branch shedding,  bird excrement and causing anxiety to residents in periods of adverse weather conditions”   

 

Why does this matter?

1. Restoring natural justice – see  above

2. Reducing council bureaucracy

 

Our application to cut the tree down led to a number of visits by several officials, none of whom called upon us or the pre-school owner.   They  were seen with cameras and clip boards measuring and filming the tree.

 

The pre-school owner and myself attended a hearing at the Council offices.   There were three councillors ‘holding court’ with a team of council administrators to assist them in their adjudication. They listened to our  five minute presentation spelling out the dangers to the infants and why it should be cut down. 

 

The Council team requesting the TPO comprised of a solicitor,  two assistants, a technician to run the  60 second film of the tree and two fully qualified Arboricultural officers from the District and County Councils.   It took them nearly a hour to 'prosecute' their application.    No wonder my council rates are so high paying for a dozen or bureaucrats and elected representatives to impose a simple TPO and then they have the gall to remind us the tree is still our responsibility.

 

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)

Highlighted posts


One Response to Tree Preservation Orders-restoring natural justice

  1. Pearl Perkins says:

    Madness. I have the same problem. TPO’d trees that are still my responsibility even though I have requested two to be felled due to large branch drop. My trees are huge cedars. No I don’t have a parkland for a back garden just a normal sized back garden. Madness utter madness.

Comment on this idea

Good idea? Bad idea? Let us know your thoughts.


Back to top
Add Your Idea