211 Notice

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Seen some similar locally. Not consistent on all responses, seem to be a bit random but they are "dressed up" to look like conditions.

 

Trouble is, there are still some people that take an official correspondence from "the ministry" as an authoritative direction that must be adhered to.

 

Had a re-stocking notice issued to a 90+yo landowner client recently. She was really shocked & upset by it. Daughter phoned me to resolve it. Quick meeting with TO and a firm line that unless written retraction issued PINS & associated costs would be applied.

 

Written withdrawal followed, no apology mind.

[Adam M]

Hmm, best go and put a gob cut in it in the morning then just in case they were thinking of putting a tpo on it.

 

Surely if they don't want it felled and I do it, they will want to try and prosecute me for it? Makes me wonder why they don't just stick a tpo on it. Is it a difficult thing for them to do? Is it worth the risk?

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

 

Really confuse them by asking for confirmation on how you would go about appealing their 'refusal'.

[oslac]

Seen some similar locally. Not consistent on all responses, seem to be a bit random but they are "dressed up" to look like conditions.

 

Trouble is, there are still some people that take an official correspondence from "the ministry" as an authoritative direction that must be adhered to.

 

Had a re-stocking notice issued to a 90+yo landowner client recently. She was really shocked & upset by it. Daughter phoned me to resolve it. Quick meeting with TO and a firm line that unless written retraction issued PINS & associated costs would be applied.

 

Written withdrawal followed, no apology mind.

 

Using the passive-aggressive threat is worth using when you know you are right although I don't think mismanaging the CA 211 system is a PINS issue and therefore no costs can be applied.

 

I think this is a case for reminding the council legal team that either one of their Tree Officers' has gone feral and is making up law as he/she goes along or the whole department is using inappropriate and misleading documentation to prevent legal works from being carried out. Possibly a case for the Ombudsman who can apply costs.

 

In any event, this particular case of incompetence appears to have a corporate identity as the 'Notice of Refusal' has been signed off by the Director.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Using the passive-aggressive threat is worth using when you know you are right although I don't think mismanaging the CA 211 system is a PINS issue and therefore no costs can be applied.

 

.

 

 

Apologies, I deviated off the original 211 topic with that example. It was meant as a supplementary example of an LA wandering off the reservation (either by accident or intent) which was being exampled within 211 replies requiring replanting.

 

My (confusing) example related to a LA seeking to enforce re-planting after a FC FL approved TPO tree fell where the LA re-planting notice was both factually inaccurate and it had already been represented to the LA that they were not the executive authority for felling and therefore could not condition nor enforce a condition.

 

It's still ticking along with LA "seeking further advice from legal."

 

It was the LA re-planting notice that was going to PINS if not retracted. It was retracted.

 

It wasn't so much a passive-aggressive tactic, the re-plant notice had a "timed" period to comply under threat of having the work done by LA and a charge levied against the property. It was a simple presentation of choices - retract or justify.

Edited December 21, 2016 by kevinjohnsonmbe

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

When do they start, is an issue with all notices. This has led, unsurprisingly, to numerous court cases. In answer to the original question, day 1 starts the day after the notice was received by the LPA, unless expressly stated otherwise. That is the precedent the courts have set, albeit it I'm not aware of a specific S211 case. So day one does not start at 8:15 on the day the notice was served, rather the following day.

 

 

 

Ed

 

 

I can't find any references to notices starting the day after submission / receipt by LA. Portal submissions are registered and transferred to LA showing date of original submission online which subsequently (possibly automatically, not sure) carries forward with same date / time stamp to LA webpage.

 

Is the day after receipt a local interpretation??

 

In any case and as usual, the original question seems to remain open to interpretation but the problem is resolved since formal reply received 2 days ahead of day 42 (or is it 43?)

 

👍🏻

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

 

I have informed the clients to simply ignore the condition.

 

...but it'd be nice to still encourage them to plant a replacement tree anyway yeah

 

Cheers,

Paul

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

An extract from the Act at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/211

 

 

211 Preservation of trees in conservation areas.

 

(1)

 

Subject to the provisions of this section and section 212, any person who, in relation to a tree to which this section applies, does any act which might by virtue of section 198(3)(a) be prohibited by a tree preservation order shall be guilty of an offence.

.

 

[F1(1A)

 

Subsection (1) does not apply so far as the act in question is authorised by an order granting development consent.]

.

 

(2)

 

Subject to section 212, this section applies to any tree in a conservation area in respect of which no tree preservation order is for the time being in force.

.

 

(3)

 

It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove—

.

 

(a)

 

that he served notice of his intention to do the act in question (with sufficient particulars to identify the tree) on the local planning authority in whose area the tree is or was situated; and

.

 

(b)

 

that he did the act in question—

.

 

(i)

 

with the consent of the local planning authority in whose area the tree is or was situated, or

.

 

(ii)

 

after the expiry of the period of six weeks from the date of the notice but before the expiry of the period of two years from that date.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

An extract from the Act (see last sentence) at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/211

 

 

211 Preservation of trees in conservation areas.

 

(1)

 

Subject to the provisions of this section and section 212, any person who, in relation to a tree to which this section applies, does any act which might by virtue of section 198(3)(a) be prohibited by a tree preservation order shall be guilty of an offence.

.

 

[F1(1A)

 

Subsection (1) does not apply so far as the act in question is authorised by an order granting development consent.]

.

 

(2)

 

Subject to section 212, this section applies to any tree in a conservation area in respect of which no tree preservation order is for the time being in force.

.

 

(3)

 

It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove—

.

 

(a)

 

that he served notice of his intention to do the act in question (with sufficient particulars to identify the tree) on the local planning authority in whose area the tree is or was situated; and

.

 

(b)

 

that he did the act in question—

.

 

(i)

 

with the consent of the local planning authority in whose area the tree is or was situated, or

.

 

(ii)

 

after the expiry of the period of six weeks from the date of the notice but before the expiry of the period of two years from that date.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

An extract from the Act (see last sentence) at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/211

 

 

 

 

 

Previously linked that in post 30 Paul.

 

It seems an odd choice of words though: "it shall be a defence for a person charged... blah, blah etc..."

 

There would be no offence requiring a defence if the person were to rely upon the circumstances that provide a defence!

 

Just seems like a waste of words to me.

 

😳

[jaime bray]

When I submit through planning portal i get an email informing me that the local authority will validate the notification within their work flows, it also states that I'm not to accept the pp email as a validated notification.

 

Upon receipt of the notification, the local authority planning department, assess the notification to ensure that everything that should be contained within it is present.

 

I then get an email stating that the notification is either adequate or not.

 

Until I receive that email I do not begin to count six weeks.

 

The local authority has to give twenty one days minimum to allow general public to view and make comment etc. Through regular contact I am made aware of when the public consultation period begins and ends.

 

After this period I contact the local tree officer or planning department to discuss any developments arising.

 

This then aids me in keeping my client informed whilst allowing me to manage workloads to satisfy clients timeframe of work being completed.

 

If I submit a notification to carryout work,I would never carryout that work without having written confirmation from the local authority that there is no objection and/or an intention to apply a tpo.

 

This approach seems to work for me. The local authority workload is huge. I empathise and try to assist where I can.

 

If you've ever waited around on site on the day a job is to be done, because you were just that bit uncertain as to whether notice period has passed etc, then you will know of the undue stress. The job is hard enough without worrying about prosecution and a bad reputation.

 

If you are planning to go into consultancy,a good relationship with your local tree officers will be a lot more valuable than a bad one.

Edited December 21, 2016 by jaime bray