An interesting scenario...

[Gary Prentice]

And there was i trying to find your neutral representation to the application? Where did that go?

 

some similarly well protected trees in Manchester I passed today

[skyhuck]

54 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

I probably didn't express that as intended!

 

Agree all bats are protected (unlike trees), but what I meant was, sometimes over restrictive legislation can have a negative rather than a positive effect e.g.: Aversion to allowing / maintaining / sustaining bats roosts - and trees with potential for protection because of the potential hassle involved downstream.

 

I wasn't disagreeing with you, just presenting (not very well perhaps) a parallel comparison. 

Ah yes! with you now, the law of "unintended consequences" I guess.

[Tom D]

This sounds like a simple balls up on behalf of the LA. They are hardly likely to do anything about it now as it will make them look bad. This sort of thing is actually quite common.

[Gary Prentice]

59 minutes ago, Tom D said:

This sounds like a simple balls up on behalf of the LA. They are hardly likely to do anything about it now as it will make them look bad. This sort of thing is actually quite common.

It can't be a balls up, Cornwall has a whole department tasked with sustainable development... It says so on their website

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

3 hours ago, Gary Prentice said:

And there was i trying to find your neutral representation to the application? Where did that go?

 

I didn't comment personally Gazzer, I highlighted the deficiencies in the application form to the PC who agreed to change from 'support' to "support subject to TO consultation on site / application.'

 

There's a classic line from Trainspotting....  to misquote - "For all the good that did I'd just as well stuck it...." (you know the rest!)

 

Raised the issue as an enforcement query (I know that's not ideal, but it seemed the least bad way of raising it.)

 

Once again....  For all the good that did I might as well....

 

On 3 Aug 2017, at 11:36, Planning Enforcement <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mr Johnson

 

Thank you for your enquiry to Planning Enforcement. As you have advised the trees are not referred to within the decision notice and therefore there are no conditions which are being breached by carrying out works which affect the trees. I have checked and there are no Tree Preservation Orders on the property and it is also not in a Conservation Area therefore we wouldn’t seek any consent for works to be carried out to trees on this property. Therefore we would not seek to investigate this matter as no breach of planning has occurred.

 

Kind regards

 

X

Senior Development Support Officer

Planning and Sustainable Development

Cornwall Council

 

Dear X, 

 

Thank you for the email and telephone conversation earlier.

 

To summarise the points regarding trees, please see extract of email exchange Johnson / Stevens (Planning Case Officer) 09:49 3 Aug 17: (earlier post)

 

.....

 

Also attached the map extract of the site and surrounds previously forwarded to the PO.

 

Separate to the matter of the trees, the DN states in Condition 4 that no work should commence until after written approval has been received from the authority in response to the submission of detailed plans.  As I think you confirmed, there are currently no additional details registered with the authority as submitted by the applicant and work HAS commenced.  Unless I’m mis-reading the DN, this would appear to present a potential breach.

 

You may have sensed a degree of frustration during our telephone conversation.  This is entirely attributable to the difficulty I have experienced in attempting to highlight this issue, starting with the input to Parish council consultee comments (which appear to have been disregarded) and culminating in the number of perceived attempted ‘brush offs’ now that the issue is ‘live.’  

 

Both yourself and the case officer have verbally stated that where not in a CA or subject to TPO protection, trees in development sites are not a material consideration in the granting of consent - I beg to differ, would highlight s197 of the Town & Country Planning Act which states otherwise and request a copy of Cornwall council’s policy to support the statements made.

 

You mentioned forwarding the details as a complaint and I appreciate if you would - but I’m also mindful that the turn-around-time for receipt, investigation and deliberation on such matters will reach it’s natural conclusion a considerable time after any potential damage to the trees has been inflicted and the longer term consequences have become irrecoverable.  It’s of particular note that the TPO’d trees just off site are in the stewardship of Cornwall council and I was very disappointed in your initial verbal response that “…since they were not on site, they wouldn’t be affected…”  Please note within the attached map the Root Protection Areas (as defined in British Standard 5837:2012) applicable to the trees in question.

 

This submission is as a private individual but is copied to the Parish council and the Rector St Clarus for info.  

 

Best regards, 

 

Kevin

 

PS (for Arbtalk Massive) in case anyone is wondering, no, I have never been in the Liberal Club!

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Just to clarify, it's not a job.  It's a parish council / community issue.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

8 hours ago, htb said:

Got the same with a site adjacent to our wood,

Feel your pain! 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

3 hours ago, Tom D said:

This sounds like a simple balls up on behalf of the LA

 Easy enough for us to see that Tom, I wonder if they will agree?  I'm at a (LA sponsored) planning CPD event next week, it would be too much to hope for that this case officer will be in attendance....  Wouldn't it?

Edited August 3, 2017 by kevinjohnsonmbe
update

[Gary Prentice]

1 hour ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

PS (for Arbtalk Massive) in case anyone is wondering, no, I have never been in the Liberal Club!

So who measured the trees?

 

1 hour ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

 Easy enough for us to see that Tom, I wonder if they will agree?  I'm at a (LA sponsored) planning CPD event next week, it would be too much to hope for that this case officer will be in attendance....  Wouldn't it?

If I ever get that far south, I'm sure you'd be able to make enough waves to go surfing

 

Just remember, some officers have long memories

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

26 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

So who measured the trees?

 

If I ever get that far south, I'm sure you'd be able to make enough waves to go surfing

 

Just remember, some officers have long memories

I did, quickly and roughly this morning, in my own time and at my own expense / initiative....  Don't tell me, I made an error?  I don't mind too much if I did, the bottom line is, it should have been done properly and it hasn't been and nobody seems to care...

 

Making waves Gary, or having a reasonable expectation that those in authority should be expected to be sufficiently knowledgable, professional and diligent to exercise said authority appropriately?  

 

They work for us....

 

"...They have long memories..." (or to put it in management speak - corporate knowledge, because they are in the job for so long.  After all, how would such ineptitude be tolerated anywhere else?)

 

And, I'm a black belt in long memories Gary...  This one is going on the record!  If / when those trees fall over in 10 years time, I'll just pop up out of the woodwork and remind everybody of this little balls up!!

 

I've got an old man's 9'10" long board, wish there was more time in the waves though!!