Judge Defines a tree in 12000 words

Eric Frei · 14th February 2009, 05:30 PM

What is a tree?

Although the full transcript isn't printed I'm sure soon we'll be able to get one.

What brought this on was a company purchased land to develop in 2001 that was previously an industrial site prior to World War 2 but abandonded. Since WW2 though lots of saplings grew. The council refused the development and threw a Tree Protection Order onto the property. As the now wooded property comprised mainly of saplings the developer challenged what a tree was.... the Judge then had to make up a statutory definition of a tree as one did not exist.

Tough luck for the developer, now owns a useless woodlot that cant be built upon. Best do your homework before you buy, sadly though shows what councils can do after the event too. It wasn't protected at purchase only after the development was knocked back ... that stinks.

Source:Judge takes 12,000 words to define a tree - Telegraph

Quote:

A High Court judge, Mr Justice Cranston, has taken 12,000 words to answer the question: What is a tree?

The judge thought it necessary to spell out the exact legal definition of a tree because of confusion in the planning process.

While trees could obviously be the object of tree preservation orders, the question remained about the status of saplings.

For clarity the judge ruled that size did not matter, and that the smallest sapling was, legally speaking, a tree.

His conclusion clashes with that of Lord Denning, a former Master of the Rolls, who ruled that a tree was only a tree if its trunk had a diameter of at least seven inches.

In opening his judgment Mr Justice Cranston said: "What is a tree? In particular does it include a young tree, a sapling?"

He continued: "On one occasion Lord Denning said emphatically that many saplings were not trees and that in woodland a tree was something over seven or eight inches, 180 to 200mm, in diameter."

The issue arose in the case on which he was ruling, because while section 198 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provided for tree preservation orders (TPOs) to preserve trees, groups of trees and woodlands, he said that there was "no statutory definition of a tree".

He concluded that "with tree preservation orders there are no limitations in terms of size for what is to be treated as a tree. In other words, saplings are trees".

The case was brought by a developer who had challenged a Government decision to not allow works in a young patch of woodland in North Halling, by the River Medway in Kent.

Palm Developments Ltd bought the site in 2001 and applied for permission to use the land as a commercial wharf. Before the Second World War it was an industrial site but then it was abandoned, leaving a succession of trees to grow up.

Medway Council refused planning permission and applied for the site to be protected with a tree preservation order.

The company then appealed to Hazel Blears, the Communities Secretary, but she agreed with planning inspectors that the development would "cause irreversible harm to the visual amenity of the woodland".

Palm Developments Ltd launched a fresh appeal in the High Court but that failed too.

Tree Solutions · 28th May 2009, 01:32 AM

Any updates on this ?

Bob Tooley · 29th May 2009, 06:49 AM

I applied for a similar ruling from the Maine Arborist Association when I was trying to force landscapers into, or out of, the "tree" industry for licensing and regulation purposes. The problem was that landscapers were slipping into the tree industry when it was profitable and then slipping back out of it when accountability became an issue. I wanted to know if they were 'tree' people because they handled and worked on and with 'trees', or if they weren't... and the association never did come up with an answer... The size of a 'tree' was at question by the opposing landscapers and my position was...if it's going to grow into a 'tree' then it was still going to be a 'tree' at any stage of it's life...

Tree Solutions · 29th May 2009, 02:59 PM

I believe your position to be correct, though there needs to be some more legislature to that effect if we are to have any hope of asserting some accountability onto these type of characters

So I wonder.. has there been any release of said document ?

28th May 2009, 01:32 AM	#2
Tree Solutions Sappling Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Brisbane Posts: 14	Re: Judge Defines a tree in 12000 words Any updates on this ?

29th May 2009, 06:49 AM	#3
Bob Tooley Semi-mature vigorous tree Join Date: May 2009 Location: Scarborough, Maine USA Posts: 128	Re: Judge Defines a tree in 12000 words I applied for a similar ruling from the Maine Arborist Association when I was trying to force landscapers into, or out of, the "tree" industry for licensing and regulation purposes. The problem was that landscapers were slipping into the tree industry when it was profitable and then slipping back out of it when accountability became an issue. I wanted to know if they were 'tree' people because they handled and worked on and with 'trees', or if they weren't... and the association never did come up with an answer... The size of a 'tree' was at question by the opposing landscapers and my position was...if it's going to grow into a 'tree' then it was still going to be a 'tree' at any stage of it's life...

29th May 2009, 02:59 PM	#4
Tree Solutions Sappling Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Brisbane Posts: 14	Re: Judge Defines a tree in 12000 words I believe your position to be correct, though there needs to be some more legislature to that effect if we are to have any hope of asserting some accountability onto these type of characters So I wonder.. has there been any release of said document ?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
You be the judge.	playfordtree	Non Tree Related chat	5	11th March 2008 07:01 PM
G. W. Bush defines Arborists	Hili	General Tree Chat	11	23rd January 2008 05:59 PM