Agenda item

(Director of Planning and Economic Development) To consider the attached report and supporting documents.

The details of the consultation may be found here

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

The Panel received a report regarding Tree Preservation Orders: Proposals for Streamlining – Consultation.

The Government was consulting on a proposal to consolidate legislation and streamline the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) system, the consultation closed on 20 December 2010.

The key measures outlined were:

1.         The creation of a unified system for all TPOs

2.         To shorten and simplify the model TPO

The new regulations were expected to be brought into effect in 2011. Officers considered the consultation proposals to be largely beneficial. The chief benefit were considered to be that new orders would be both easier for the public to understand and for the Local Planning Authority to administer. There would be some saving in the time taken to make an order and the opportunity for error would be reduced.

Of the originally suggested responses members had comments and suggestions to alter or elaborate several.

The Questions and Responses

Question 1     Will the proposal to consolidate legislation and introduce one system for TPOs benefit tree owners and local planning authorities?

Response      There would be real and significant benefits for both. However there would also be drawbacks as well. The particular set of solutions proposed within a single format was not supported by evidence.

Question 2     Will bringing all existing and future TPOs into the same shorter format be clearer for tree owners and help local planning authorities?

Response      It would undoubtedly be clearer for tree owners, and it would assist in effective tree protection be speeding up the production of new TPOs.

Question 3     Is the proposed provisional protection helpful to local planning authorities and, given the interests of tree owners, fair and reasonable?

Response      It confirmed what was the general de facto position in any case. It was felt though, that a provisional order would become void after 6 months, which was negative.

Question 4     Is the proposed minimum notification of new or varied TPOs targeting the right people?

Response      It would still ensure that those most closely affected by a TPO were made aware, and in doing so will reduce the administrative burden of making an order to some extent, and reduce costs.

Question 5     Are the proposals to remove the current exemption for work to dying trees and limiting work to dangerous trees useful clarification, and reasonable?

Response      It provided useful clarification and closed a potential loophole. However it still left the biodiversity value of veteran trees in particular vulnerable to pruning that may have threatened their biodiversity value.

Question 6     Do you agree that the power to vary or revoke consents for work under TPOs made before 2 August 1999 should be removed?

Response      Not a power that this authority had exercised.

Question 7     Is a default period of one year for the duration of consents reasonable?

Response      On balance, two years would be preferable. Many consents were not exercised within a year, so the change would potentially increase the number of applications without an increase in tree protection.

Question 8     Will the opportunity to consider repeated operations, or programmes of work, assist tree owners in their management of protected trees?

Response      This made explicit what was a useful opportunity – serving to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy for LPAs as well as owners.

Question 9     Is the proposed change to secure planting of replacement trees in woodlands by conditions reasonable?

Response      This was a modest change, it was one that could weaken the council in respect of protecting woodland amenity.

Question 10   Are the proposed changes with regard to compensation fair and reasonable?

Response      There was no evidence supporting the complete withdrawal of article 5 certificates, this was likely to have a negative impact on the retention of large and special trees in urban areas.

Question 11   Do you have any further comments to make about the draft regulations?

Response      That the status of Area Orders appeared unclear, they were mentioned in the draft order, but not in the draft regulations. The retention of out-of-date terms, notably “lopping” and “topping” was regrettable. That the reference to “good Forestry” alone was regrettable, and that it should be expanded to /include “good woodland management practice.”

Question 12   Do you have any general comment of the outcomes predicted in the impact assessment, particularly about the costs and benefits?

Response      The Authority considered that the draft impact assessment was too limited to be truly useful.

There was no “Question 13” in the consultation.

Question 14   Are there any benefits to the “do nothing” option of not consolidating regulations and creating a unified system for TPOs?

Response      Members considered that having regard to the considerable reservations expressed it should be answered that there were benefits to the “do nothing” option. It was noted with concern that the proposed changes were not backed by evidence that alternative options for change were not considered and that although a review was proposed, there were no arrangements for systematic collection of monitoring information for future review.

Mr C Neilan advised that he would put together all the responses made and email the present Panel members to check for accuracy before submitting the final response to the Government.

RESOLVED:

That subject to accuracy, the responses to the consultation be forwarded to the Government.