Developers ?!?!

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

If they aren't working to approved plans and damage has occurred and is likely to continue, a temp stop notice would hit them in the pocket.

 

Hi Adam! Hope all is good with you?

 

That was what I was thinking. What I was hoping for was an indication of:

 

(1) What level of transgression would result in a temp stop.

(2) Who is authorised to implement it.

(3) Would they get support from management / legal if it was the TO.

(4) How likely is it that the TO would do it.

 

Granted, all scenarios will be measured on their own merit - perhaps, on a "first offence", informing the site manager of the problem and setting a timeframe to rectify would be a sensible approach, but what if it is repeat transgression?

[donnk]

from a developer point of view, I would chop them down and pay the fine should one be levied.

 

It's the norm and to be expected, just how the council has to be dealt with in the real world. Not saying its right or wrong but in the real world houses are more important than a tree.

[Mark Bolam]

That fine can now be based on the potential profit from felling a TPO'd tree, not just the max £20k it used to be.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[Joe Newton]

from a developer point of view, I would chop them down and pay the fine should one be levied.

 

It's the norm and to be expected, just how the council has to be dealt with in the real world. Not saying its right or wrong but in the real world houses are more important than a tree.

Can't wait to see where this leads!

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Arbtalk mobile app

[Mark Bolam]

It would be could to see some high-profile cases of this dished out Edward.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[donnk]

That fine can now be based on the potential profit from felling a TPO'd tree, not just the max £20k it used to be.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

 

diggers 'accidentally' damage them etc. It's all just part of doing business in the property game. Worst case is a 5 figure fine, usually nowhere near that if any. I've know it happen several times in the locale and once the normal bull$**** is trotted out, accident/miscommunication etc promise to replant (never bother as they dont check) you pay up add the cost to the build and carry on.

 

Give you another example. An acre plot that will get planning for a pair of semi's. First job before submitting an application - level it, take down every tree, bush and shrub. That way no planning conditions can be added to retain xyz tree/shrub/hedge which they almost certainly would do if you left them there especially mature trees.

 

I could regale loads of stories on the planning loopholes ......

[Mark Bolam]

Don't get me wrong Donnk, I've been involved in many scorched-earth pre-planning jobs.

My view is if the trees were worthy of a TPO they should have had one anyway.

This is slightly different though. It would be nice to see those developers get a financial kick in the nuts.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[johnp]

Don't get me wrong Donnk, I've been involved in many scorched-earth pre-planning jobs.

My view is if the trees were worthy of a TPO they should have had one anyway.

This is slightly different though. It would be nice to see those developers get a financial kick in the nuts.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

 

 

Yep, it's a bit of a joke to them at the moment,

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

from a developer point of view, I would chop them down and pay the fine should one be levied.

 

 

 

It's the norm and to be expected, just how the council has to be dealt with in the real world. Not saying its right or wrong but in the real world houses are more important than a tree.

 

 

You're dealing in "reality".....

 

I think it's quite refreshing to hear it like it is.

 

Like Gary said earlier, it's not necessarily the TO's fault - they may see a transgression and attempt to address it, but lack the support from management / legal, who might lack the fibre for a fight. Or, it could be that management / legal don't "feel" transgressions with trees warrant the action in relation to the bigger fish they may be frying.

 

My concern would be, if (if) we accept the premise that there is a general disregard for the regs, and / or lack of appetite for enforcement, why are we paying salaries for ineffective departments?

 

It's a tooth less tiger.

Edited March 26, 2017 by kevinjohnsonmbe

[Roz]

So in a nut shell - poor performance by previous TO or lack of prior to being in post and typical planners not giving a watsit and using crass conditions which did'nt even inc BS 5837 2012. The consultants for the site produced the tree survey info to the standard but so far in the case file I have not found the Impact Assessment or Method statement - DISAPPOINTING?!?! Will be contacting consultant to see if they were asked to provide one as no condition on the DN for one ?!?!

 

I now have the other developer kicking off and their arb consultant ...who in fairness is not angry with me but that this situation has arisen....understandably?

 

So at the moment it looks like the planning process condoned this ?!?!