Isle of Wight Council

Trees are protected under the Town and Country Planning Acts, and Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) have been made on the Isle of Wight under these Acts since 1949 when the first of these Acts was passed. In 1949, the first recorded Tree Preservation Order was made on the Island – the Borough of Ryde Tree Preservation Order 1949. Since then various authorities have been responsible for tree protection in various parts of the Island, and this duty they have discharged with variable success and enthusiasm. The Isle of Wight Council is now the Local Planning Authority for the Island and tree protection across the whole island is the responsibility of that Council.

It is often assumed that TPOs are much more powerful than they actually are. They are in fact very particular. TPOs need to be specifically made to cover a tree, group of trees, or a woodland. No trees are protected merely by virtue of their size, age, or species - if no order is made then the tree is unprotected (except in the particular case of Conservation Areas where consent is needed for any work to any tree larger than 75mm in girth; and generally if more than 5m³ of timber is felled, in which case a felling licence is required under the Forestry Act 1967). This means that where TPOs are absent trees are unprotected, and landowners could do major works to trees quite legally. Similarly, where TPOs are badly documented, the trees may also be effectively unprotected, and even if an offence were committed, it would be impossible to mount a successful prosecution.

Tree Preservation Orders are intended to protect trees or woods that have significant present or future public amenity value. They are therefore normally placed on trees which are more than ordinarily attractive and which are visible from a public place, often a road or public right of way. Protection of trees and woods across the Island is patchy; with some trees which are worth protecting being unprotected, while in other areas almost every tree is protected whatever its amenity value.

Whilst it might be a good idea in theory to provide protection for a wide range of trees or even all trees, in practice this would mean that Officer time is spent in dealing with requests to remove or carry out work to trees of little value. This time would be better focussed on trees and tree matters that are more important, or in making new Orders on trees which need protection but do not presently have it.

Since the Tree and Landscape Officer was appointed in 1997 it has been acknowledged by officers and members alike that the TPO records used by the Authority are in need of improvement. The records are old, inaccurate, and not always filed in a sensible way. Much has improved since then, and a working system has now been operating for some years. Nevertheless, improvements to the service offered, and particularly the process of creating new TPOs, has been made difficult by the amount of time required to use the records in their current state. Furthermore, many of the Orders in existence are no longer adequate for many reasons, ranging from a simple missing document; to more complex reasons such as development on the site or similar changes. This may mean that a prosecution would be hard to undertake successfully, or, in severe cases, it may mean that such an order has no force at all. It also means that providing information about protected trees in a certain area, for example in response to an enquiry by an elected member, has not been a simple matter.

Additionally, the Government has advised all Planning Authorities to review any Orders that include Areas (a particular kind of TPO) as these are likely to be abolished at some point in the near future. It is likely that this will not happen for several years yet but as many large and important areas of the Island are protected only by Area orders, which are in general terms far inferior to other Orders anyway, a review of all Area orders would be an important priority even if all the paperwork were in perfect order.

Accordingly, a review of Island TPOs has now commenced. This report marks the end of the first phase of this process.

Matthew Chatfield

Senior Countryside Officer

26 June 2002

2. Summary

Background to the Review

There are longstanding problems with the existing Tree Preservation Order records. Many are in poor condition, and do not provide the protection to trees for which they were intended. A review of these has been undertaken and this report is the first major output of the review.

Results

All paper records of Tree Preservation Orders were processed and analysed. Of these, only 22.3% proved to be adequate. The trees protected by the TPOs were distributed across the Island in an unexpectedly even manner.

The Orders were given a priority rating for review based on the inadequacy of the order, and the perceived importance of the protected trees. Ancient woodlands were given top priority, and six percent of Orders requiring review fell into this category. Another nine percent were high priority for other reasons.

Analysis

The review clearly identifies the considerable extent of the deficiency in the paper Orders. As a value added product of this review process, for the first time all Orders have been given unique numbers, duplicates have been removed and filing errors have been made good. We now know that there are some 1148 records of Orders.

The review also allows an estimate, based on accurate figures, of the work required to review the Orders. The task will take eleven years for one person to complete, over and above the existing routine work undertaken. If adequate Orders are excluded, this figure only goes down to 10 years 7 months. Even so, this does not take into account all the areas where no TPOs presently exist.

Conclusions and Recommendations

It is clear that the majority of trees protected by existing Orders may not actually be protected at all. This is a serious problem, the extent of which is greater than was anticipated.

It will not be possible to accommodate this large new project within the existing staff structure of the Trees Section. The TPO review is a new task for which new resources are required.

The areas where this review could be commenced are identified using criteria that prioritise areas where trees are particularly important in the local landscape, and where they might be under particular threat.

Proposed Restructuring

There is a difficulty in obtaining competent consultants to undertake TPO review work and it is likely that, to undertake a job of this scale, directly employed staff would be a more effective use of resources. A restructuring of the Trees Section is proposed which will make it possible to undertake the TPO review. There is already evidence that the existing Trees & Landscape Section is not sufficiently staffed to undertake the routine work of managing protected trees – with only 24% of the average number of staff in Hampshire local authorities.

The proposed structure not only provides a way to undertake the TPO review but also addresses existing staffing problems in the Section. New proposals are made to include a new, wider consultation process, and to develop and considerably improve the existing Tree Warden scheme to use the support available from local people.

Financial Costs

This review will require revenue funding on a permanent basis. The proposals, as identified, would cost an extra £82,000 per annum. This figure takes into account the existing Trees Section budget, and savings identified elsewhere in the Countryside Section.

The Case for New Resources

New resources will be necessary to effectively implement the TPO Review. It must be emphasised that the TPO review cannot be undertaken using existing staff resources, which are barely sufficient to provide the basic routine tree protection service. The identified improvements to services will not be achieved without some restructuring and resources. Some limited aspects of these proposals could be implemented without necessarily undertaking the TPO review, although not without some revenue cost.

Until the Review is undertaken, tree protection will not be complete or consistent. In addition, the longer no action is taken, the more resources will be required to rectify the situation.

The existing tree protection service is only providing the basic level of service. There are expectations that the service provided will improve, in particular with regards to the level of consultation which is presently offered, and with the use of tree wardens.

Whilst it would be possible to make various smaller-scale improvements to the service, there is no doubt that these would be considerably more effective if the fundamental review required is simultaneously undertaken. Full implementation of the TPO review would not only improve the TPO records, but also bring a wider improvement to the entire Trees Service, which would be widely welcomed by users of the service including members of the public, elected Members and internal clients such as Development Control, Highways, and the AONB Unit.

End of Summary

3. The TPO Review Process

Background to the Review

Problems with the system were first outlined in a paper for information to the Countryside Panel on 15 December 1998. A further report was presented to Planning and Countryside (Policy) Committee held at Westridge on 11 January 2000. At this meeting it was resolved that a report be prepared regarding Area Orders and the financial implications of examining the trees presently protected therein, and upon possible ways of responding to recent and forthcoming changes and regulations governing Tree Preservation Orders. This reporting process was begun and it soon became apparent that a very much larger task was necessary than was proposed. Officers were able to identify a fund of £35,000 by autumn 2000, which allowed the TPO Review to start at the beginning of 2001. This funding was intended to produce the Order Status Report (this document) and to establish the computer system to record and catalogue the Orders and allow easy access to future Orders. Although some pilot work to review Orders on the ground has been undertaken with these funds, the £35,000 was not intended to be sufficient to begin implementation of the main body of the review, proposals for which are discussed later in this document.

The process had a slow start, as considerable research was required to establish the best computer resources to use, and to obtain and install the required programmes. Parallel and continuing problems with the wider Acolaid system have meant delays to this part of the Review. However, since autumn 2001, an officer has been working full-time on the TPO review process compiling a database of all Orders, re-filing, and reviewing the paper records. The computer delays have not affected the production of the Order Status Report, which was produced using an independent database not linked to Acolaid. An update on the process was reported to the Planning Policy Task Group held on 3 December 2001.

This review of the paperwork comprises the, now completed, first phase of the TPO Review, and this report is one product of that first phase.

Outcomes from First Phase

Order Status Report summarises condition of existing Orders and analyses the work required to review them, and suggests some priorities.
All Orders are now identifiable by their own unique reference number.
A number of records that were duplicates, filed in error or effectively not Orders at all have been removed from the system.
Records held by Legal Services, Local Land Charges and Countryside Section are now synchronised.

Problems Encountered

Before the review process began, it was estimated that between 800-1000 Orders were in existence. The filing system did not allow the Orders to be easily counted, as they were subdivided and filed in several places. However, it turned out that over 1200 records needed to be processed. This extra workload delayed the review process to some extent.

A second unanticipated discovery was that a large number of the Orders used as working copies in the Countryside records were not the same as the original documents stored by Legal Services and those kept by Local Land Charges. Although in most cases the differences were inconsequential, this did require that a large subgroup of Orders were checked, not only against the working records, but also the originals - a significant extra task. This had the beneficial effect of updating and synchronising the files of Countryside, Legal Services and Local Land Charges.

Next Steps

The second phase is the input of data for existing Orders - and new Orders as they are created - into the new Acolaid TP computer system. This process has already begun, although the system is not yet fully operational. However, this was anticipated and neither the Order Status Report nor the third phase site review are dependent upon the Acolaid system to proceed.

The third part of the review process is the actual on-site review of the protected trees themselves, and the creation of new Orders that this would require. Pilot projects have been undertaken since 2000 to plan how this can be done. This process is currently being undertaken on parts of the Undercliff.

Needless to say this will be by far the largest part of the review, and it is anticipated that to complete the review across the entire Island will take many years. More detail of this and options for this third phase are discussed later in this report.

Notes for the Graphs:

For more information about inadequate Orders and how these are identified, see Appendix 1, page 29.

These records refer to Orders by number. However it should be noted that not all Orders are the same. An Area Order covering many hundreds of trees is, for these purposes, treated the same as an Individual Order covering just one tree. However there are few such large Orders (see Appendix 2: List of Larger Area Orders) and this process provides a useful guide, without necessarily making this distinction.

A number of Orders were eliminated from the records, because they were Orders made before 1975, which referred only to elms. These trees no longer exist because of Dutch Elm Disease. These orders are shown as ‘None’ in Graph 1. They will not require revision.

These figures exclude orders made since 2001, of which there are some 45 located throughout the Island, almost all of which are adequate.

5. Analysis

Graph 1: Tree Preservation Orders by Electoral Division

This chart shows the total number of Orders in each Electoral Division. In addition, it shows the number of inadequate Orders in each Division. The graph shows that no single ward has all its TPOs assessed as adequate. In fact, the average ward has eighteen inadequate orders and only five adequate ones. Four wards have no adequate orders at all.

These figures do not directly indicate the risk to trees so it does not follow that areas with the most inadequate orders are the most at risk. Other factors (not shown on this graph) are equally important. For example, in many wards there are Conservation Areas that provide a level of protection to trees without the additional need for Orders to be made. Also in rural areas development pressure is relatively low, compared to any urban ward.

What is striking about these data is the surprisingly even distribution of inadequate Orders. Most wards follow the pattern of about 20% adequate - with a few exceptions. The most prominent ward is Wootton, which leads the field with 58% of its Orders being adequate. This is largely due to a cluster of good quality Orders that have been made in the New Road area - northwest of the bridge at Wootton. By contrast is the ward with the largest number of Orders overall, Brighstone and Calbourne, with only 3% of its Orders being adequate.

One of the reasons for breaking down the Orders by ward is to identify areas where the review work should be concentrated. The results do not show any clear differences, contrary to expectations. The data, as shown, seem to suggest that although some wards are worse than others, there is an approximately normal distribution both of numbers of Orders and numbers of inadequate Orders.

However, not revealed by this exercise is the extent of trees which have never been the subject of a TPO, but which are worthy of one. Some of these might be located through the review process but, more likely, these trees could be identified by local liaison and the development of the network of tree wardens. At present, there are no resources available to undertake such a further survey, and it would not be appropriate to encourage members of the public to identify these trees at this time. Unless changes are made to the Trees Section it is unlikely that the work generated by such a process could be processed. Indeed, the process of identifying trees that are unprotected might have the effect of alerting unscrupulous landowners who may then remove the trees.

At present, some 15 to 25 new Orders are made every year for a variety of reasons. These do include requests from the public and others, but the process is not systematic or prioritised. There is not therefore any system to be certain that all trees worthy of protection will be protected.

Graph 2: Tree Preservation Orders: Status

This pie chart simply expresses the total numbers of adequate and inadequate Orders. It reflects the condition of the paper records – not actually the risk to trees (which is better shown by the priority ratings shown in Graph 3).

There are a total 1148 records of Orders in existence, of which 256 are adequate and 892 are inadequate. There are 872 Orders in total, including 40 further Orders made since 2001 that did not need reviewing. Also about 20 records of Orders turned out to be invalid and can be discounted. Although this total number is well within the 800-1000 range that was anticipated; the much larger number of records, generated by duplication and splitting up of large Orders, did mean considerably more time was required to process the Orders than was anticipated.

This means, in effect, that only one Order in five is adequate.

Graph 3: TPO Revision Priorities

Following the initial review, the Orders have all been examined against 19 criteria (see Appendix 1, page 29). They have also given a revision priority from five possible allocations (shown below) which reflect a proposed order for revision should these proposals be implemented.

Table 1: Revision Priority Allocations

Priority Number	Priority
0	No revision needed (Order no longer in force)
1	Inadequate: very high priority
2	Inadequate: high priority
3	Inadequate: medium priority
4	Inadequate: low priority
5	Adequate, to be reviewed within 30 years

Those in priority 0 (e.g. Order no longer in force) are Orders that are not valid because they were made prior to 1975 and referred to elm trees that no longer exist.

All Orders that are presently entirely satisfactory have been made revision priority 5 or 4 (depending on their age) in accordance with DTLR guidelines that state that all TPOs should be periodically reviewed.

Note that this does not correspond precisely to the classification of adequate/inadequate, which is shown in Graph 2. Adequacy or otherwise is determined mostly by the condition of the paper records. Adequacy does not take into account known risks to trees. This priority order is a much more detailed assessment of the true need for review.

Therefore, although all of the Orders shown as Priority 5 are defined as adequate, there are also Orders presently adequate which are nevertheless shown as Priority 4 because of the age of the Order, which means that they are likely to be in need of review within the next twenty years. A rolling 30-year programme of review is assumed for the long-term review of all Orders.

Work Required to Review Orders

To predict the amount of work required to review a particular Order is not straightforward. Orders can vary from huge Area Orders covering many dozens of properties and many thousands of trees, to the simplest Individual Order on one solitary tree.

However, based on the experience of the pilot projects which have been undertaken, it is possible to make predictions based upon an ‘average’ Order. Nevertheless it must be emphasised that these are subject to wide variations:

Table 2: Sample time required to revise one typical Order

Task	Worker (present arrangement)	Time (days)
Field visit and report	Consultant Arboriculturalist/ Tree and Landscape Officer	0.2
Making new Order or Revision of existing Order	Administration Officer	0.5
Responding to representations, consultation with Members, committee paper if required	Tree and Landscape Officer/ Senior Countryside Officer	1.5
Confirming /serving final Order, filing	Administration Officer	0.3
TOTAL		2.5 days

Using this rough figure, it is possible to extrapolate the time to required tackle the outstanding Orders requiring review. For example by considering the different revision priorities as below:

Table 3: Sample time costs of reviewing all outstanding Orders

Revision Priority		Number of Orders x Days		Time to Revise (days)	Time to Revise (work years)
1	Very High	68	x 2.5 days	170	0.68
2	High	98	x 2.5 days	245	0.98
3	Medium	679	x 2.5 days	1697.5	6.79
4	Low	215	x 2.5 days	537.5	2.15
5	Adequate	40	x 2.5 days	100	0.4
TOTALS		1100	days	2750 days	11.00 years

All this would be in addition to existing work, which would carry on as normal.

Priority Areas for the TPO Review

If the TPO Review commences, it will obviously not be possible to review the entire Island in one go. Some form of prioritisation is necessary.

One intention of the Order Status Report is to identify those areas with the most urgent need for review. The results of the review of paper Orders show a surprisingly even distribution of inadequate Orders (see page 9). This means that other factors will need to be considered in addition to the findings of this report. Ancient woodlands not covered by adequate Orders were given Priority One in the review. These are distributed throughout the Island and will be reviewed first of all. However, there are relatively few of these Orders, some 68.

A priority list has been prepared for the review of all other Orders. Parts of the Island proposed in the priority list meet at least four of the following criteria:

Some Orders in the area are in Priority 2 for review.
Trees in these areas are especially important in the local landscape, either because many old wood and field trees are present, or because there has been significant amenity planting in the 18^th and/or 19^th centuries.
Trees in these areas tend to be under threat from development by increasing numbers of planning applications.
No Conservation Area exists over the selected area.
Some trees known to be worth protecting are not protected at all by existing Orders.

The proposed wards or parts of wards for review are shown below in priority order.

Priority	Ward Name	Part of Ward for Review
1	Bembridge North	Between Kings Road, Love Lane, Swains Road/Swains Lane and coast
2	Wootton	Between Woodside Road and coast
3	Binstead	North of Quarr Hill/Binstead Road
4	Ventnor West	Undercliff
5	Chale, Niton and Whitwell	Undercliff
6	Shanklin South	Between Victoria Avenue and Church Road; town south of Priory Road/Popham Road
7	Cowes Castle East	Between old Northwood Park boundary along Baring Road and coast
8	East Cowes North	Between Old Road and coast
9	Wroxall and Godshill	Wroxall
10	Ventnor East	Bonchurch south of Leeson Road/Madeira Road excluding Conservation Area
11	Mount Joy	Watergate Road and Shide Road
12	Shalfleet and Yarmouth	Bouldnor and Cranmore
13	Brighstone and Calbourne	Porchfield area
14	Freshwater Afton	Between Afton Road and Bedbury Lane and south to coast
15	Totland	Between Church Hill and coast

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

If all Orders are reviewed, using the figures above, the task will take eleven work-years to complete with one person working full-time on that project alone. If adequate Orders are excluded, this figure only goes down to 10 years 7 months. Even so, this does not take into account areas where no TPOs presently exist.

It is therefore necessary to consider ways to break the task down into manageable and realistic projects.

This section identifies possible ways forward, and likely problems that may be faced. The main recommendation is for a restructuring of the Trees Section involving new revenue funding.

A Possible Approach: Revising the Priority 1 and 2 Orders Only

A review of only Priority One Orders is likely to take eight months of work. The funds to undertake a part of this work can be taken from funds allocated to the existing TPO Review, although this will not be sufficient to complete the task, and at the end of the process this budget would have been entirely spent. The subsequent review of Priority Two Orders would require another year and perhaps £25,000.

This is also reliant upon obtaining a consultant or contractor to undertake the work. At present, there is a significant difficulty obtaining a suitable person. This problem may well apply to any similar solution. However, for the amount of work required, it would almost certainly be more cost effective to employ an officer for the purpose. This may attract a suitably qualified person, but the likelihood of this is not great if the length of contract offered is short.

The Problem of Availability of Skills

Our pilot work with the TPO review fieldwork has revealed a problem, which is in many ways peculiar to the Island, although it is one that affects many professions.

There are very few Island based individuals in professional practice who have the competence to undertake tree survey work to the exacting standard required for this essential task. Practising tree surgeons and arboriculturalists have the competency but must be excluded from consideration for TPO review work, as they would at some point be called upon to judge the merit of their own work or that of their business competitors, or to place TPOs on land belonging to their clients or potential clients. This would create an unsustainable conflict of interest.

Although mainland firms will readily quote for work on the Island, any work that requires regular site visits will become prohibitively expensive.

Only a person who was not an active independent practitioner in this field, or who was new to the Island, would be able to take on such work. For the purposes of the TPO Review we have identified only two such persons on the Island who are qualified and competent to do this work. One is the landscape architect already employed by the Council in the Planning Policy Section. Although he is not a tree surgeon he has considerable arboricultural experience. He does, from time to time, deal with TPO applications for works in the Ryde area.

The other is a qualified arboriculturalist working for the Island 2000 Trust and ARC Environmental, the Island 2000 Trust’s consultancy arm. He, too, is not primarily employed as a tree surgeon or arboriculturalist and so is not engaged in work that might conflict with TPO review. He is currently contracted to the Countryside Section, as required, to provide expert advice, climbing inspections and assessment of TPO applications for works throughout the Island.

Both of these persons have been employed to do contract work from time to time but neither would be able to provide support on the scale required, being primarily employed to do other jobs. It seems likely that any other person available would be subject to the same restrictions.

Restructuring of the Trees Section

It is essential to understand that it will not be possible to accommodate this large new project within the existing structure of the Trees Section. The TPO review is a new task for which new resources are required.

A more efficient way to tackle the problem will be to restructure the existing Trees Section and provide dedicated staff to work on the review. The making of permanent posts may provide a way to overcome the skills shortage as the post may attract a suitable professional to move to the Island or be sufficient for a local person to give up professional practice. However, this will require a significant increase in the revenue budget.

If the revenue required to undertake this restructuring is secured, the project, and many other improvements to the service offered (as shown below), will be implemented on a permanent basis.

The existing and proposed structures are shown below.

Trees Section: existing structure

*These are paid for by the one-off TPO Review funds which will be wholly spent in autumn 2002.

Notes on existing structure:

The existing Trees Section has built up over the last four years, and now has two permanent and two temporary members of staff. Additionally, since September 2001, consultants or contractors from time to time undertake considerable amounts of work, especially specialist inspections or reports. The existing temporary TPO Review Administrative Officer is an administrative post, and reflects the paper-based nature of the review so far. For the next phase - actual reviews of orders - a competent Arboriculturalist is required.

A particular problem with the present system is that the Tree and Landscape Officer (the only officer with appropriate tree experience and competence) is fully committed to managing the team; providing advice to elected Members, officers and the public; making site visits to decide applications for works to trees which are currently protected and dealing with other routine matters. This restricts the time available to develop new projects and strategies and to implement new projects such as the TPO Review.

Research has also shown that, even disregarding the extra tasks involved in the implementation of the review, the existing provision of staff for trees and landscape work is low compared to that allocated by other authorities. A review of Tree and Landscape Section staffing (excluding administrative support) across all authorities in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight in 2000 showed that, with only two exceptions, all authorities employed between 4 and 6.5 staff per 100,000 population to undertake the work. The exceptions were Portsmouth City Council, with slightly more than 3 staff, and the Isle of Wight Council, which today has only 1.18 permanent staff per 100,000 population - only 24% of the average. This assumes that 1.5 officers are employed in this role on the Isle of Wight, although in fact the primary role of one of these officers is administrative. Administrative officers were excluded from the survey in all other authorities.

These figures exclude the landscape architect employed on a temporary contract by the Council in the Planning Policy Section, whose primary work area is restricted to Ryde.

Even looking at land area, the average number of staff is 7.32 per 100km². The Isle of Wight Council has the lowest staffing ratio per square kilometre of any authority in the survey with 0.38 staff per 100km² - a very low 5.2% of the average number of staff. Many District and urban areas are smaller in area than the Island and the next lowest figure is Hart District Council with nearly ten times the staff ratio of the Island with 3.24 staff per 100km². Charts to illustrate this are shown in Appendix 3 (page 33).

At present, some 25% of the Senior Countryside Officer’s time is taken up with managing the Trees Section and, in particular, the TPO review process. The Countryside Section has several other teams that require management, plus the Senior Countryside Officer is required to work on projects other than line management. This means that a disproportionate amount of management time is needed to sustain the present Tree Section at the expense of other Countryside matters.

Proposed New Structure: Benefits

Securing new resources and restructuring the existing posts within the Trees Section could secure a number of key permanent improvements to the service.

The proposed structure deletes the 1.5 temporary posts and the contract work, but in turn creates three new posts and establishes the existing temporary administrative post as a permanent full time one. A diagram showing this new structure is given on page 24.

The main benefits of this restructuring will be as follows:

1. Improved consultation process covering all applications for works

2. Improved service response times, meeting statutory targets

3. Implementation of TPO Review, enhancing protection for important trees

4. Creation of a sustainable Tree Warden service

Role of the Tree Team Leader

Two of these new posts are intended to exclusively staff the TPO Review. The other new officer is the Team Leader. The new Tree Team Leader has an overview of the entire Trees Section and has the responsibility of co-ordinating not only the day-to-day work as it is undertaken now, but also the new task of undertaking the TPO review. This person will also be a professional with arboricultural experience and qualifications, and so will be able to undertake a caseload of his/her own; particularly the more complex or sensitive issues which at present can adversely affect the response times for routine matters.

Comprehensive Consultation

The new Tree Team Leader would be responsible for introducing new consultation procedures, which would include wider publicity and consultation with elected members, parish and town councils and in some cases selected neighbours, prior to a decision on an application for works to protected trees. The need for such a process was reported to the Economic Development, Tourism and Leisure Services Select Committee on 22 October 2001. Members endorsed this approach and asked Officers to report on how it could be implemented.

At present, when new Orders are made, all affected landowners, parish and town councils, and elected Members are consulted before the Order is finally confirmed. This fulfils the statutory requirement for consultation. Most Orders are straightforward, attract no objections and are confirmed under delegated powers, but occasionally these orders are brought before the Regulatory Panel for consideration, for example, if they are particularly significant or have attracted relevant objections.

By contrast, applications for work to protected trees - which can be just as contentious, if not more so - are not normally advertised or consulted upon at present and are invariably determined under delegated powers. Local members, and town or parish councils are informed of all decisions afterwards. There is no duty upon the Council to consult more widely. However, it has been for some time an aim of the Countryside Section to improve this consultation process. This can be achieved, for example, by informing elected members in advance of the decision, or by the wider publicity of a list of applications received.

Experience shows that people will make comments upon TPOs and tree related issues very readily and in some detail. Many are not familiar with the legislation and frequently ask further questions or make comments about related issues that are not to do with the actual matter in question. These comments and enquiries must, of course, be acknowledged and dealt with appropriately but this can be a time-consuming process. It is not wise to invite comments without the means to process them and, with the present staffing arrangements, the extra time taken to undertake any further consultation would mean that the delay in processing applications will became unacceptably high. However, under the proposed new structure, the wider consultation process could be implemented.

New Records System

The new computer system will soon be operational and ready to receive the data from the TPO review. Existing TPO data (taken from the paper records) will be entered in the first instance. This process will start in the summer.

The Team Leader would also be responsible for maintaining and developing the new records system and for ensuring that this information is widely available - specifically on the Internet - as soon as is practicable. If the new consultations procedure is implemented it will be possible to publish the register of new applications on the Council’s website, in a similar manner to the existing planning applications list.

Role of the Tree and Landscape Officer

The Tree and Landscape Officer post will revert to its original purpose of providing competent tree and landscape advice and decisions to the Council and to members of the public. The officer would also have the task of maintaining the existing Protected Trees service to the public and to other sections of the Council, particularly Development Control. Also, most site visits will be undertaken by the officer without any recourse to contract labour (in normal circumstances). This should speed the decision-making process considerably. The Tree and Landscape Officer will also be responsible for the Tree Wardens contract (see page 23).

TPO Review Team

The new TPO Review Officer would be a competent professional person who will dedicate themselves full-time to visiting sites and reviewing existing Orders and to making new Orders when necessary; for example in response to suggestions from elected members, members of the public, tree wardens and town or parish councils. A full-time administrative assistant would support the TPO Review Officer. The TPO Review team would be responsible for devising a programme of reviews based initially on the list shown on page 15 and also by liaison with the local Members in the affected areas. This programme would then be rolled out to cover other parts of the Island until the entire review process is complete.

Using the calculations made in Table 3, eleven work-years are required to conclude the review. As two officers are being employed, it might seem possible to complete the review in half of the eleven-year period. However, as only one of these officers is an arboriculturalist, this person will undertake the majority of the site visits. It is likely therefore that the process will take longer than six years. However, all the Priority One Orders could be completed in as little as eight months.

Existing Administrative Support Maintained

Two full-time administrative staff would support these officers, as is the case at present. One is an administrative assistant, whose duties, as now, will largely be looking up records, entering data and responding to routine requests for information.

The other post becomes the Applications Officer who would implement the consultation system outlined above, co-ordinate all the applications for works, monitor statutory timescales and keep performance records. This would require the ability to liase directly with elected members and parish and town clerks, and to deal tactfully with sensitive issues. This accordingly demands an officer with suitable experience and skills.

One of these officers is presently on a temporary contract funded by the existing £35,000 TPO review money. Once these funds are exhausted there are no further funds budgeted to continue the post. However, the money to fund a further 0.5 of a permanent post can already be found by moving funds into the Trees Section by making savings elsewhere in the Countryside Section (see Table 4, page 26).

If implemented, these two administrative posts would be concerned with the existing routine works, and the consultative process as outlined above. There is a very substantial requirement to produce and manage documents within the Trees Section. This will be greatly increased by the new consultative regime. If the new consultation process is implemented, it is estimated that as a result of this alone an extra 25 letters per working day will be generated, many of which will themselves generate responses which require further action and incur costs.

Development of Tree Wardens Scheme

It will be important to develop a network of tree wardens to complement the new work of the Tree Section. At present, although tree wardens exist in some parishes and towns, they are not well used and the quality of support varies. The Council currently puts no financial support into maintaining a Tree Warden system, and has no input into how this is managed. The Hants and IW Wildlife Trust maintains the present system on a voluntary basis. They have indicated that they wish to pass this responsibility on to local authorities throughout Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, as their own involvement is at present very limited. This is the normal arrangement elsewhere in England.

Developing the Tree Wardens scheme without an accompanying increase in support from the Countryside Section is unlikely to be a successful venture and may even be counterproductive. It is important that any person who puts forward voluntary effort for the community can be assured that their work will be appreciated and well used, otherwise, they may quickly become disillusioned or even antagonistic.

At the meeting of the Planning Policy Task Group held on 3 December 2001, Members expressed strong support for the introduction of a system of working with Tree Wardens. The Wight Green Centre, which runs the very successful Pond Wardens scheme with support from Southern Water, has been approached to provide an estimate of the costs of providing a similar service for Tree Wardens. Negotiation with them has produced the following suggested service level:

Yearly survey of all wardens.
Recruitment of wardens for all vacancies.
Three compulsory training sessions for new wardens.
Three non-compulsory training sessions on related subjects for all wardens.
Telephone support line, liaison with Parish/Town Councils and IWC Countryside Section.
Wight Green Centre’s ‘screening’ service.
Tri-annual newsletter.
BTCV affiliation and insurance for practical activities and public liability
Free tool loan facility.
Minimum of two media items per annum (e.g. press release, photo opportunity).
Promotional leaflet.
Two public displays per annum.
Organisation and administration of steering group with two meetings per annum.
Attendance of representatives to annual regional conference.

The cost of this contract would be £5,000 per annum. This cost is less than might be expected if the work were to be undertaken in-house as it can be managed in parallel to the existing Pond Warden scheme – indeed it is anticipated that several of the existing pond wardens may also volunteer to become tree wardens.

The Tree and Landscape Officer would supervise this scheme and would be the point of contact for Tree Wardens to give information to the Council for action.

Tree Section: Proposed New Structure

This structure deletes the 1.5 temporary posts and the contract work, but in turn creates three new posts and establishes the existing temporary administrative post as a permanent full time one.

Issues which will not be addressed

However, this new structure will not address the specific issue of management of trees on IW Council land, including highway trees. This is a separate issue, which is still being investigated. A separate report will be produced on this subject.

However, the implementation of the TPO Review and the establishment of a more effective Trees Section will almost certainly facilitate the implementation of any future proposals to manage IW Council trees.

7. Financial Implications

Needless to say, these proposals do have resource implications.

The following table shows the annual costs of introducing the proposed restructuring for the first five years. After five years, the TPO Review project should be reappraised. If the calculations in Table 3 are correct, with two officers working full-time, in five years the review of existing TPOs should be well under way. At that stage, the introduction of the rolling review will need to be considered, to ensure that the review process does not fall so far in arrears again. Other authorities have adopted a thirty-year review period and this would be a reasonable period of time to undertake such a review on the Island.

The existing Trees Section budget is shown below as a credit, and this is subtracted from the outstanding costs to leave a balance of annual recurring revenue required to implement the changes.

This proposal does not include any start-up and recruitment costs for this restructuring process, which are likely to be in the region of £12,000 as a one-off cost.

Table 4: Financial Summary

EXISTING ARRANGEMENTS
Post	Scale	Pay	Pay + on costs
Tree and Landscape Officer	6-SO2	-£20,433	-£24,009
Administrative Assistant (Trees)	2	-£11,817	-£13,885
Administrative Assistant (Temp 0.5)*	2	-£5,909	-£6,942
TOTAL SALARIES			-£44,836
Existing Administrative			-£500
Existing Phones			-£500
Existing Mileage			-£1,000
TOTAL EXISTING BUDGET			-£46,836

*This post is not presently budgeted but savings elsewhere in the Countryside Section can create 0.5 of a post. This contribution is shown in the figures.

NEW PROPOSALS
Post	Scale	Pay	Pay + on costs
Trees Team Leader	POa	£23,451	£27,555
Applications Officer	4	£13,764	£16,173
Administrative Assistant	2	£11,817	£13,885
Tree and Landscape Officer	SO1	£20,433	£24,009
TPO Review Officer	SO1	£20,433	£24,009
TPO Review Administrative Assistant	2	£11,817	£13,885
TOTAL SALARIES			£119,515
Administrative/Telephones			£2,000
Tree Wardens Contract			£5,000
Mileage (Essential/Casual)			£2,500
TOTAL PROPOSED BUDGET			£129,015

GRAND TOTAL EXTRA ANNUAL COST

£82,179

8. Alternative Option

This restructuring will be necessary to implement the TPO review effectively. It must be emphasised that the TPO review cannot be undertaken using existing staff resources, which are barely sufficient to provide the basic routine tree protection service. The identified improvements to services are unlikely to be achieved without some restructuring.

Retaining the Status Quo: If We Do Not Implement the TPO Review

There is a statutory duty to consider all applications for work to protected trees and to provide information about the status of protected trees. There is also a duty to provide, on request, information about protected trees and about application for work to protected trees.

It is clear that the majority of trees protected by existing Orders may not actually be protected at all. Whilst this is a very difficult position, it is one that has persisted for some time. People very rarely do commit offences and, in most cases, they will not examine the original documentation before considering whether or not to undertake works. This leads to the situation where an Order, even if wholly inadequate, still does provide a level of protection as the landowner assumes it is more effective than it actually is. The present system relies upon the assumption that the existing Orders will not ever be required to be produced as evidence and also on a general ignorance of the poor state of the records. However, the weakness in this system is that if ever an apparent offence is committed, it may be nearly impossible to prosecute the offender. This has in fact occurred on several occasions in the last few years.

Furthermore, it is easier said than done to give honest information to enquirers who ask about the extent of protection on the trees on their properties. This applies not only to enquiries made to the Countryside Section, but also those made to Development Control and Local Land Charges. Whilst at present we reveal any existing TPOs regardless of the quality of the Order, it might be arguable that we are providing misleading information if we know that some of these Orders have no legal force. This could be significant if, for example, a potential investor made an enquiry about a plot of land, and decided not to purchase it on the grounds that a TPO existed.

This existing state of affairs could, in theory, persist for some time yet without any serious difficulties arising. It must be emphasised nevertheless that, until the review is undertaken, tree protection will not be complete or consistent. However, the longer this goes on, the more resources will be required to rectify the situation in the end. Furthermore, all the while so many trees are effectively unprotected, there is an ongoing risk that unscrupulous landowners could fell or otherwise damage many well-loved trees in important local landscapes throughout the Island. Needless to say, once removed, there is no way in which landowners can be obliged to replant such trees unless a valid TPO is in force.

It is also the case that the existing tree protection service is only providing the very minimum level of service which might be expected. There are expectations that the service provided will improve, in particular with regards to the level of consultation which is presently offered and also with the use of tree wardens. Neither of these is likely to be successfully implemented if the TPO review process is not begun in some form. Furthermore, it must be recognised that if the legal basis of the tree protection system is flawed, this will weaken public confidence in the Council’s ability to protect trees, which could result in less effective consultation and poor subscription to the tree warden scheme.

It is clear that full implementation of the TPO review would not only improve the TPO records, but bring a wider improvement to the entire protected trees service. Whilst it would be possible to make various smaller-scale improvements to the service, there is no doubt that these would be considerably less effective if the fundamental review required is not undertaken at the same time. A partial implementation would also present difficulties for any future full implementation of the TPO review.

Appendix 1: About Inadequate Orders

Definition of an Inadequate Order

As a part of the review process, 19 reasons for categorising an Order as inadequate were established. Many Orders fail several of these tests at once.

These 19 reasons identify the problem(s) with each inadequate Order. Some of these problems are more serious than others. Some of the criteria were judged by looking at the records, others required local knowledge and study of other records, for example the Ancient Woodland Register.

The criteria are shown below, followed by a table summarising the results. The criteria are grouped into seven subgroups, which reflect the priority given to the revision of the Order, e.g. Orders failing on criteria 1-3 are in more urgent need of revision than Orders failing on criteria 14-19.

1-3 Ancient woods covered by inadequate orders:

1. Ancient Woods where schedule lists “mature” or “semi-mature” or “overmature” trees [so understorey/regeneration is not protected].

2. Ancient Woods where species list on schedule inadequate e.g. “oak, ash, etc”.

3. Ancient Woods where species list on schedule imprecise e.g. “all trees of whatever species”.

4-6 Other woods covered by inadequate orders:

4. Other woods where schedule lists “mature” or “semi-mature” or “overmature” trees.

5. Other woods where species list on schedule inadequate e.g. “oak, ash, etc”.

6. Other woods where species list on schedule imprecise e.g. “all trees of whatever species”.

7-8 Large Area Orders where trees known to be worth protecting but orders are inadequate:

7. Large Area Orders where trees are known to be worth protecting but may not be protected.

8. Large Group Orders which are in fact Area Orders [ie. No, or inadequate, details of species and/or numbers are given] and are known to be worth protecting but may not be protected.

9-13 Orders inadequate for some other reason:

9. No copy of Order.

10. Plan missing or illegible.

11. Development taken place since Order made [not in itself a reason for inadequacy, but recorded as part of this exercise as a reason to check if Order still adequate].

12. No evidence of confirmation.

13. Order made before 1980 [not in itself a reason for inadequacy, but recorded as part of this exercise as a reason to check if Order still adequate].

14-15 Smaller Area Orders where trees are known to be worth protecting but may not be protected:

14. Smaller Area Orders where trees known to be worth protecting.

15. Smaller Group Order which are in fact Area Orders [i.e. No, or inadequate, details of species and/or numbers are given] where trees known to be worth protecting.

16-17 Smaller Area Orders where trees known to be not worth protecting:

16. Smaller Area Orders where trees known not to be worth protecting.

17. Smaller Group Order which are in fact Area Orders [i.e. No, or inadequate, details of species and/or numbers are given] where trees known not to be worth protecting.

18-19 Others:

18. All other Area Orders where value of trees is not known.

19. Other [includes things too unusual to be classified separately, or not anticipated, such as woods which were protected as groups or areas; Orders which were never signed; meaningless entries on schedule (for example “flax”); inconsistent addresses; or inconsistencies between the schedule, plan and title].

Summary of Reasons for Inadequate Orders

Table A: Numbers of inadequate Orders by invalidation code

Invalidation Code

Number

of Orders

359

323

430

181

223

Total entries: 1,947 (Total includes duplicates).

Notes

Orders can fail on one or more categories, so total of all codes adds up to more than the number of Orders.

Categories 11 and 13 are not in themselves reasons for inadequacy but are recorded as a part of this exercise as a reason to check the validity of the Order. Although these criteria cover many Orders, only a very small number of Orders that fail under them do not fail under any other criterion. These few are not listed separately and will not significantly affect total figures.

Why Area Orders are Considered Inadequate

Many Island Orders, especially older ones, are Area Orders, which provide less effective protection than more specific orders. An Area Order is what is sometimes misleadingly called a 'blanket' order, though this is not the correct term. This means that the Orders have been placed not on individually identified trees, groups of trees, or woods, but on whatever trees were growing in the area at the time the Order was made. Unlike Woodland Orders they do not cover any trees that have subsequently grown in the area.

Because of this it can be difficult to determine whether a particular tree covered by such an Area order is protected or not, since it is not individually marked on a plan and it is not possible to determine its age as, unless the tree is felled, its age can only be estimated. It is therefore not always possible to be certain whether it existed at the time of the Order. This makes successful prosecutions for unauthorised work more difficult.

Area Orders are a significant cause of inefficient use of Officers' time in dealing with requests for work as the trees may not even be protected. In all other Orders, it is normally possible to gain considerable information from the Order and the attached plan. However in the case of Area Orders it is often necessary to make a site visit, or even employ a specialist consultant, to establish for certain whether or not a tree is protected.

This problem is nationally recognised. The Government intends to introduce primary legislation that would require all new Orders to be for individual trees, groups of trees or woods. No new Area Orders would be made, and existing Area Orders would lapse after a certain timescale, probably five years. No date has been set for this legislation, but Government has advised all Local Authorities to review their TPOs in anticipation of this. Current DTLR advice is only to create Area Orders to provide emergency and temporary protection. This is the practice currently followed by the IW Council. However, in the past, especially the period 1949-54, Area Orders were commonly made over very large areas, and many Area Orders do still exist on the Isle of Wight.

Appendix 2: List of Larger Area Orders

New Reference		Order Title
1949	1	(Borough of Ryde) Tree Preservation Order 1949
1949	3	(Urban District of Sandown-Shanklin) Tree Preservation Order 1949
1950	2	(Borough of Ryde) Tree Preservation Order 1950
1950	3	(Parish of Niton) Tree Preservation Order 1950
1950	4	(Parishes of Calbourne, Shalfleet and Yarmouth) Tree Preservation Order 1950
1951	1	(Parishes of Freshwater and Totland) Tree Preservation Order 1951
1951	2	(Urban District of Cowes) Tree Preservation Order 1951
1951	3	(Borough of Newport) Tree Preservation Order 1951
1952	1	(Borough of Ryde) Tree Preservation Order 1952
1952	2	(Parishes of Brighstone, Shorwell and Chale) Tree Preservation Order 1952
1954	1	(Urban District of Ventnor) Tree Preservation Order 1954
1955	1	(Parishes of Arreton, Gatcombe and Godshill) Tree Preservation Order 1955
1956	2	(East Wight) Tree Preservation Order 1956
1957	1	(Borough of Ryde) Tree Preservation Order 1957
1969	5	Sandown-Shanklin, Isle of Wight, Tree Preservation Order 1969
1969	6	The Undercliff and Niton Tree Preservation Order 1969

This list shows the Area Orders still in force that cover the largest geographical areas (in date order, not size order). Although many other Area Orders cover smaller locations, these ones are the largest. These Orders often also cover individual trees and many smaller Groups and Areas, so a map showing this detail cannot yet be produced. This method of making Orders was superseded by the use of smaller or more specific Orders in about 1960, with the exception of two in 1969.