1
TEMPO evaluation method used by many district councils for evaluating
suitability of trees for a TPO
“Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders”
By Ann Smith (the views in this article are not necessarily those of the Gloucestershire Orchard Group)
September 2009
An example is shown for an historic perry pear tree earmarked for development. The
district council gave their evaluation (see forms). An experienced orchard tree
surgeon and surveyor gave his opinion (see additional forms). The tree officer
disagreed with his evaluation, but we emphasized that the orchardist was very
experienced “I have surveyed in excess of 750 Orchards in
Gloucestershire”. A reference was then provided to show that he did indeed
have the expertise.
In situations like this, it is vital to go through the tree officer’s report, line by line and
dispute, if need be, every statement. Be careful to read the guidelines which
accompany the TEMPO system (see below). Most tree officers will be happy to
cooperate.
Footnotes
1. Now that the Secretary of State of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has
passed back the ultimate decision making process for conferring TPOs, to planning
committees within a district council, it makes it very difficult for protestors to “go
higher up” in a dispute. One case involving a tree, went to an ombudsman, but they
felt that the tree officer’s report still held. If you know of ‘success’ stories with
ombudsmen resolving TPO issues, Ann Smith would be interested to know more.
2. Many planning applications are now displayed online to the public in considerable
detail, sometimes with the property developer’s own tree report. This report should
also be scrutinized for evidence for saving the tree.
TEMPO GUIDELINES – the following points may be vital to your case!
page 3 Perry pears can live for 300 years, not 100-150 years as stated! However, this
longevity may be more realistic for urban trees.
page 5 the trees may be even MORE visible once housing has been added; you can
use this fact to increase their evaluation rating!
page 6 “the trees with significant historical or commemorative importance” – a very
valuable point – expand on this when making a case for applying a TPO.
page 7 “where trees of minimal (adequate) amenity are under threat, typically on
development sites, it may be appropriate to protect them allowing the widest range of
options for negotiated tree retention”.
page 8 “11-13 possibly merits TPO. This applies to trees that have qualified under all
sections, but have failed to do so convincingly. For these trees, the issue of applying
a TPO is likely to devolve to other considerations, such as public pressure, resources
and gut feeling.”
2
page
1
ORDERS
3
page
2
4
page
3
5
page
4
6
page
5
7
page
6
8
page 7
9
page
8
10
page 9
11
Appendix - case study
Tree Officer’s report at district council
Group of three perry pear trees
T1
T2
T3
(scroll down)
12
13
T2
14
15
16
ORCHARDIST REPORT by Martin Hayes 7.09
The Orchard is accessed from a footpath which runs alongside the west
of the site to the southern gated entrance. The trees become visible
halfway along the footpath and there are three in total. On entering
the Orchard you notice the ridge and furrow a common feature in these
old orchards. The Peoples Trust for Endangered Species (PTES)
classify an orchard as “five or more trees at 30ft (apple) and 40ft
pear)spacings unbroken”. Special mention is given to fewer trees if
they are deemed worthy eg Veteran trees or exceptional examples. Two
of the trees fit both these criteria with the furthest tree from K.
Road not. The PTES also have a grading system for orchards and their
potential for rare species, of which the Noble Chafer is one, but are
only markers 1 being top (lots of cavities for organisms) to 3 (no
cavities). On these trees I would give a 2.
SUMMARY
Perry pears are the most majestic and misunderstood trees in the
orchard, in terms of their condition. To the untrained eye they
look as if they are dying but in fact they are simply 'self pruning'.
These trees can live up to 300 years. The main problem with unmanaged
trees is the cropping centre has been allowed to get out of
hand and this leads to limb failure and can undermine the rest of the
tree. It is important therefore to prune the limbs back to encourage
more central cropping. This can be done so as not to upset the
balance or overall look of the tree. The pruning of the branches
encourages new growth. An expert fruit tree pruner should advise.
In my work as the Chief Surveying Officer for the Gloucestershire
Orchard Group and in conjunction with the PTES and Natural England I
have surveyed in excess of 750 Orchards in Gloucestershire and would
rank the two trees nearest K. Road as among the finest examples.
The other tree is rather less grand but still worth looking after.
THE REPORT
T 1 Perry Pear. Healthy pear tree with an abundance of fruit. Crown
lift, reduce height up to a third and sympathetic pruning of major
limbs to bring crop more central.
T 2 Perry pear. Tree in a healthy condition with an abundance of
fruit. Branches to the west and the south in need of sympathetic
pruning to bring crop nearer centre. Prune tops and spread up to a
third.
T 3 Nearest south entrance Perry pear. Tree in need of some work to
make safe and help recovery. Suggest expert pruning of up to one
third all over. Cropping needs to be more central.
17
I have just read the report by the landscape officer and wonder if we
are talking about the same trees. A few pointsTree 1 “Very Dangerous main stem vulnerable to collapse limbs
vulnerable to collapse” yes if you leave the tree as it is, you can
prune to a third without it losing its looks.
Tree 2 Sorry I saw no decline there is not even enough dead wood to
give it a PTES grade one rating! Look at the fruit!
Tree 3 I think “severe decline” is a little strong there is more
than a good chance this tree has nothing wrong other than neglect.
Better twig development will come with pruning. All trees are
potentially dangerous we can lessen that danger by sympathetic
pruning.
Martin Hayes 07900 985679
We also emphasized that with expertise, pruning need not diminish amenity
value but will enhance it (a good shape can be retained and fruiting will soon
return). We advocated the trees become part of a Public Open Space.
(scroll down)
18
TREE EVALUATION METHOD FOR PRESERVATION ORDERS (TEMPO)
SURVEY DATA SHEET & DECISION GUIDE
Date: X XX 2009 Surveyor: Martin Hayes, Chief Surveyor, Glos.Orchard Gp/People’s Trust for Endangered Species
Tree details
TPO Ref (if applicable):
Owner (if known):
Species: Pear – Pyrus communis
Tree/Group No: T1
Location:
REFER TO GUIDANCE NOTE FOR ALL DEFINITIONS
Part 1: Amenity assessment
a) Condition & suitability for TPO
5) Good
Highly suitable
Score & Notes
5
3) Fair
Suitable
Healthy perry pear in need of some pruning to lighten the load.
1) Poor
Unlikely to be suitable
0) Dead
Unsuitable
0) Dying/dangerous*
Unsuitable
* Relates to existing context and is intended to apply to severe irremediable defects
only
b) Retention span (in years) & suitability for TPO
5) 100+
Highly suitable
Score & Notes
4
4) 40-100
Very suitable
A healthy well maintained perry pear can grow for 300 years.
2) 20-40
Suitable
1) 10-20
Just suitable
0) <10*
Unsuitable
*Includes trees which are an existing or near future nuisance, including those clearly outgrowing their context, or which are significantly
negating the potential of other trees of better quality
c) Relative public visibility & suitability for TPO
Consider realistic potential for future visibility with changed land use
5)Very large trees with some visibility, or prominent large trees
4) Large trees, or medium trees clearly visible to the public
3) Medium trees, or large trees with limited view only
2)Young, small, or medium/large trees visible only with difficulty
1)Trees not visible to the public, regardless of size
Highly suitable
Suitable
Suitable
Barely suitable
Probably unsuitable
Score & Notes 5
Largest tree around
the area and amongst
largest in the county.
d) Other factors
Trees must have accrued 7 or more points (with no zero score) to qualify
5) Principal components of arboricultural features, or veteran trees
4)Tree groups, or members of groups important for their cohesion
3)Trees with identifiable historic, commemorative or habitat importance
2)Trees of particularly good form, especially if rare or unusual
1)Trees with none of the above additional redeeming features
Score & Notes
3
These trees are home to many species and
have proven habitat and historic
importance.
Part 2: Expediency assessment
Trees must have accrued 9 or more points to qualify
5) Immediate threat to tree
3) Foreseeable threat to tree
2) Perceived threat to tree
1) Precautionary only
Score & Notes
5
Part 3: Decision guide
Any 0
1-6
7-10
11-14
15+
Do not applyTPO
TPO indefensible
Does not meritTPO
TPO defensible
Definitely meritsTPO
Add Scores for Total: 22
This tree represents a tree of
exceptional quality. I believe
it to be over 100yrs old and
still producing an abundance
of fruit.
Decision: Yes
19
TREE EVALUATION METHOD FOR PRESERVATION ORDERS (TEMPO)
SURVEY DATA SHEET & DECISION GUIDE
Date: X XX 2009 Surveyor: Martin Hayes, Chief Surveyor, Glos.Orchard Gp/People’s Trust for Endangered Species
Tree details
TPO Ref (if applicable):
Owner (if known):
Species: Pear – Pyrus communis
Tree/Group No: T2
Location:
REFER TO GUIDANCE NOTE FOR ALL DEFINITIONS
Part 1: Amenity assessment
a) Condition & suitability for TPO
5) Good
Highly suitable
Score & Notes
5
3) Fair
Suitable
Healthy tree with little die back.
1) Poor
Unlikely to be suitable
0) Dead
Unsuitable
0) Dying/dangerous*
Unsuitable
* Relates to existing context and is intended to apply to severe irremediable defects
only
b) Retention span (in years) & suitability for TPO
5) 100+
Highly suitable
Score & Notes
4
4) 40-100
Very suitable
With attention, this tree can live for 100 years.
2) 20-40
Suitable
1) 10-20
Just suitable
0) <10*
Unsuitable
*Includes trees which are an existing or near future nuisance, including those clearly outgrowing their context, or which are significantly
negating the potential of other trees of better quality
c) Relative public visibility & suitability forTPO
Consider realistic potential for future visibility with changed land use
5)Very large trees with some visibility, or prominent large trees
4) Large trees, or medium trees clearly visible to the public
3) Medium trees, or large trees with limited view only
2)Young, small, or medium/large trees visible only with difficulty
1)Trees not visible to the public, regardless of size
Highly suitable
Suitable
Suitable
Barely suitable
Probably unsuitable
Score & Notes
5
Largest tree of any
species in the area and
amongst the largest of
its species in county of
Gloucestershire.
d) Other factors
Trees must have accrued 7 or more points (with no zero score) to qualify
5) Principal components of arboricultural features, or veteran trees
4)Tree groups, or members of groups important for their cohesion
3)Trees with identifiable historic, commemorative or habitat importance
2)Trees of particularly good form, especially if rare or unusual
1)Trees with none of the above additional redeeming features
Score & Notes
3
Proven to host rare species and historically
important as part of an industry in the past.
Part 2: Expediency assessment
Trees must have accrued 9 or more points to qualify
5) Immediate threat to tree
3) Foreseeable threat to tree
2) Perceived threat to tree
1) Precautionary only
Score & Notes
5
Part 3: Decision guide
Any 0
1-6
7-10
11-14
15+
Do not applyTPO
TPO indefensible
Does not meritTPO
TPO defensible
Definitely meritsTPO
Add Scores for Total: 22
The tree represents a perry
of exceptional quality in
terms of size & health.
Like T1, this could be over
100 yrs old.
Decision: Yes
20
The case is continuing.
Ann Smith 01452 855677
PHOTOGRAPHS
It is worth taking some good quality photographs and circulating them
to all the planning committee and tree officer so that you can prove
and highlight important features such as visibility from a public
footpath, route to school, route to gym, bus routes etc.