TPO Validity

[Gary Prentice]

I've sort of failed an assignment to critically evaluate a TPO document. The crux of my answer was that because the title of the order differed from the title of the plan there was no way of even knowing that the order was confirmed.

 

I can't remember the exact wording, but the title was 'The parish of XXXXX No.2', while the plan was titled 'Parish of xxxxxx, TPO No.98'. The tutors view was that this was okay because the parish name was the same and the intent was there.

 

As far as I'm concerned, although in the case of discrepancy the map takes precedence, how can there be a link with the different TPO numbers. I've done quite a lot of research, read Mynors, etc but can't find any cases to back up my side of the debate. I really need something to prove my case, because I'm feeling pretty disgruntled after the work I've put in and I don't want to change the answer just to get a pass, when I feel that the answer I'm expected to come to is wrong.

 

I know Jules. I'm a pedant:biggrin:

[Andy Clark]

Given how many TPO apps I've had sent back over the years because the wording on the application form differed, even slightly, to the wording on the submitted site plan, I'd say you had a fair claim.

 

The law however seems to say different......

 

In Mynors, tail end of pg 582, reference is made to the matter of Robinson v East Riding Of Yorkshire, and goes on to quote the High Court thus - "No doubt it is desirable that an up to date plan should be used if possible, but what the regulations require is that the map 'shall indicate the position of the trees.' Provided that the plans attached to the order are sufficient to achieve that objective, it is of no consequence what so ever that they may be outdated and/or inaccurate in other respects".

 

Mynors does go on to say that "where the map and the schedule are inconsistent, it must be a matter of judgement in each case as to whether each should take precedence over the other - or whether the discrepancy is sufficient to render the order invalid."

 

Further, he goes on to say that "There seems to be no basis for the confident statement on TAN 10 that "in any discrepancy as to location, the map will prevail".

 

So all in all I think you have a point for debate, albeit one that you may not be able to back up by precedence.

[Gary Prentice]

I've just read Robinson and it doesn't really help as the case had a different context. The argument there, was the scale and accuracy of the map used. My case is that the map used in the TPO isn't related to the TPO, but to another one.

 

It really seems, in the way we've received the order, that a clerk has picked up a pile of documents, dropped them and then just picked them up saying here's an order, there's a map - they go together. Somewhere, there should be a first schedule of no 98 with a map for no. 2.

 

The map doesn't 'clearly indicate the protected trees' but it does indicate some trees, whether or not from a confirmed order- who knows.

 

I've read the T&C Acts, regulations and Mynors back to front, but as you say can't find a precedent. Common sense, to me, says there has to be the same identification title or number on both, to link one to the other -otherwise its pointless, you can't check that it was confirmed.