Jump to content

Log in or register to remove this advert

Extraordinary Opinions of Legal Departments


Gary Prentice
 Share

Recommended Posts

In short my understanding is that if the TPO was not confirmed for what ever reason then the tree is still protected by the CA designation HOWEVER as you had submitted a S211 which would now be over the 6 weeks by default you have deemed consent? and can therefore fell the trees.

 

 

That's how I would interpret it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Log in or register to remove this advert

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hahaha, the COuncil letter says that you have to 'apply' again because it's a CA. That old nugget comes up again.

 

Havign trawles through all this post, it seems clear to me as it has to others that in the letter of the law you do not have to re-notify. To that I would add that in the spirit of the law, tehre is allowance for TPOs not to be confirmed and therefore anticipation of circumstances where not confirming is appropriate. This seems to be one of those circumstances. It also is plain that the Council at a date immediately before the end of the 6 months did not deem the tree worthy of protection, so why would it when a new CA notification is put in? That's a rhetorical question. The safe assumption in law is that the legislation meant 2 years when it said 2 years and it meant 6 months when it said 6 months, and in the absence of legislation or guidance saying that a lapsed and unconfirmed TPO resets the CA clock, you have a robust 'defence' if the Council tried to prosecute you for felling in accordance with the original s.211 notice. What public interest would be served by attempted prosecution, apart from showing up the errors of the Council? None.

 

Fell away! Just check the client's and your post on that morning, then go for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jules, I thought you may have jumped in earlier.

 

What's your opinion regarding my agent designation?

 

Although I didn't submit the 211 notice, the LA did serve that TPO on me. I assume that recognises me as an 'interested person' and I should have been informed that the order wasn't going to be confirmed.

 

I don't have much expectation of receiving another order.

 

On another note, if the legal department are telling the TO that the CA is protecting the tree, it's going to be an interesting conversation in a few days. I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that meeting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's your opinion regarding my agent designation?

 

I'm just back from the hills.

 

"Just check the client's and your post on that morning, then go for it."

 

A new TPO would not have to be se4rved via an agent. It should go to the owner/occupier. Your previous role as agent may not be relevant. Play it safe. Check the mail while fuelling up (you should be looking out for the postie as part of teh risk assessment).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That the legal department are telling the TO what they have is absurd. The whole situation is perplexing, as it strikes me that the LA in question just lack a proper understanding of Statute Law.

 

I would echo what Roz and Jules have stated and agree that you are well within your legal rights to fell the tree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish it wasn't like this. I agree with the TO's decision that the tree merits retention, I would in his position.

 

But, in working for the owner I have to work to achieve her objectives. It's a sorry state of affairs that it's come to this and to be honest, in this case, the blame lies firmly with the legal department.

 

Hopefully a lesson is learnt to prevent repetition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sat in hospital having cancer treatment and still having to talk to the enforcement officer on the phone:sneaky2:

 

Because the council offered a consent for a pruning spec while the tree was protected, they seem to think it's still protected!:confused1:

 

We have the letter on site stating the order wasn't being confirmed, a copy of section 211 of the T&CPA and copies of the original 211 notice. There asking where our letter of permission is ffs.

 

Now being asked to halt work.:thumbdown:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


  •  

  • Featured Adverts

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.