TPO`S

[docsquid]

TPO's - don't talk to us about TPO's!

Our wood is protected by a TPO. We were granted a felling licence on the recommendation of the Forestry Commission. HOWEVER although we are allowed to thin a certain number of trees for woodland management purposes without prior permission, we are NOT allowed to cut off any dangerous branches overhanging the road or internal paths, or to do anything to any of the trees other than felling it without a TPO works order. We are not allowed to say if the tree is dangerous ourselves, we have to have a tree surgeon or aboricultural consultant say if the tree is dangerous. We aren't even allowed to say whether a tree is an Oak or Sycamore without professional help (we are beginners, but I think we know this!).

In consequence we put in an application before doing anything at all, even coppcing or even felling under the terms of our current licence. It is a pain, but I think the planning authority are getting the idea that we don't want to build a block of flats or a paintballing venue on the site, and once they are happy with what we are doing, they will probably cut us a bit of slack.

[tracy]

Can you get TPO's lifted I wonder?

[docsquid]

Tracy, we looked into this. There is no legal mechanism for lifting a TPO even after a tree has died and fallen over! It is permanent. They didn't think of lifting them when they passed the legislation. I suspect we are using some logs from fallen trees as benches that are still protected by TPO's.

[MartinD]

TPOs are a minefield. I have a FC Woodland Improvement Grant which covers 'trees' with a diameter of 10cm or more at 1.4m (chest height). Anything below that remains covered by the TPO. I have a lot of sycamore regeneration. The WIG is designed to rid the woodland of sycamore, but they regenerate more easily than all the other trees put together. I spoke to the tree officer, and asked whether the TPO covers saplings of less than 10cm - it does. In fact, it covers all 'trees', whether existing at the time of the TPO, or grown subsequently. She sent me chapter and verse from a government publication, which helpfully suggests that the definition of a 'tree' (vs a seedling or sapling) could be tested in court.

It's another annoying example of people trying to do the right thing falling foul of the law, whilst those who turn up in the middle of the night with a chainsaw get away with it.

[docsquid]

I think the problem is the lack of clear definition of what is, and is not, a tree. We were told anything under 8cm we don't have to worry about - it is only trees that they are interested in. So we can clear sycamore saplings before they get too big.

We also have a felling licence. In theory this means that we can take a certain amount of larger trees without TPO works permission but in practice we are going to get this just in case!

[greyman]

You may already know about this recent judgement but it does 'clarify' what is a tree!

http://www.steeleslaw.co.uk/news-item.aspx?id=80ad8214-59ef-49da-b6da-96c58a7e3778

As per usual the 'LAW' is one thing but the fall out can really make life difficult for some.

I am sure we are all really happy with this and the fact that virtually any herbert can apply for a tree preservation order on you wood and if granted your carefully crafted plans to look after your wood are likely to be sidelined or made unworkable. Yea, how the blind cannot see for the looking!

Greyman

[tracy]

A jolly good source of mine recommends this book:

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

I haven't read it yet...

[docsquid]

Ah..that explains the confusion then - we were given the advice about 8-10cm before the recent judgement. As it happens we are putting in a TPO works application right now, so can include removal of sycamore saplings in the area of sycamore infestation in this.

Like you all say - this is designed to protect trees from unscrupulous builders (which it doesn't always) but has the effect of preventing people from looking after woodland and thus protecting the trees it sets out to protect. If we don't do some of the tree clearance work, or keep the paths open (which might involve moving or removing saplings growing on them) then the woods won't be there in 100 years time!

[greyman]

I does seem to be that certain members of this Great British society of ours think the trees, woods and Forest just 'exist' without the smallest iota of work - only the wild woods would manage them selves and there aint much of that about these days. The folly of that lack of knowledge that woods etc DON'T manage themselves can be seen by quite a few of us on this forum. On a par with this is all the conflicting pulls from the 'interested' parties - Dormice, birds, rare plants, weed control - you name it there seems to be someone with a vested interest in your woodland. We're lucky - so far- in that we don't seem to be on too many peoples radar. Long may it last.

Greyman

[docsquid]

:-)

I suspect that the same members of the Great British Public who shout loudest about TPO's, and indeed oppose any work being done, would be the first to sue us if, while walking round our wood, a branch from a TPO protected tree fell on their head while we were awaiting permission to remove the offending branch.