Another Validation 'Refusal'

[Gary Prentice]

I've just received a communication from a local planning department, invalidating a recent application for the following reasons.

 

1)         We would require a location plan to provide clearly where the trees are in relation to the Tree Preservation Order, also they would need to correspond with the actual Tree Preservation Order.

 

Firstly, I've provided a site plan in the application, clearly showing the property and the location of the trees in the garden.

Secondly, I believe that the demand to correspond my tree numbers with the schedule plan is not an obligation in either guidance or legislation, and no other planning department that I've ever submitted to requires or demands this.

 

This particular LA has pulled me several times previously on this, but because I don't believe I have to, I won't play their game. I've always refuted their demand and have have always previously got them to accept my original submission. I've had the phone slammed down on me twice while correcting their understanding of the legislation and it's requirements, and a couple of the planning officers now pass the phone to someone else if they inadvertently answer my calls. 

 

I could be a bit more helpful, admittedly, by using the corresponding tree numbers but;

• they've removed all TPO interactive maps off of line
• most councils, IME, want money to provide an electronic copy of the original TPO
• the planning office is twelve miles away
• they refuse to prove to me that the applicant/agent is obliged to and failing to do so is a reason to invalidate the application.

 

I did manage to get to speak to a very nice lady at the enquiry desk, who after an email request immediately emailed the full original Order FOC. The original plan's from 1997, before the site was developed and a housing estate was built, it bears no resemblance at all to todays geography. I can work from site plans, topo's , old plans etc and I know my tree species. How the LA expect the average householder to identify the correct tree numbers is beyond me, and then refuse to validate when they don't or can't.

 

I've pointed out in my response that I've submitted on average 2-3 applications a week to more than a dozen planning authorities; all the other Manchester metropolitan boroughs, two National Park Authorities, East Cheshire CC, Liverpool and Mersyside councils, Warrington and I don't know who else, but they are the only ones with this stance.

 

Almost all of my other dealings with TO's (in or outside of the planning departments) and POs is really good. If I make an error in a notification or application, they will all usually just ring me up to clarify a problem and amend things, to determine the application/submission efficiently and promptly - I appreciate that they do and always try to make sure that whoever goes on site can identify the trees and the works properly, so an invalidation like this really peeves me.

 

Is anyone else being forced to correspond their tree numbers?

 

 

 

 

[Adam M]

TPO reference number is 'if known' (and surely actual individual tree refs) on the application form. It sounds like they're making work for everyone concerned. What a ballache! 

[Gary Prentice]

The ballache would/should be plannings, actually trying to identify the correct trees from a twenty year old plan themselves and backtracking through two decades of applications and decision notices to work out what was there, what is there now and if anything absent was felled illegally.

 

 

But, if they're willing to supply a copy of the TPO promptly and free of charge, I wouldn't really object, in the spirit of cooperation, to using the schedule numbers. I just object when they misapply the process and blame the applicant.

 

Some councils seem to be going backwards over the last few years, removing online maps of TPOs and CAs which then results in telephone or email searches taking up even more officer time and resources. 

 

 

[Anno]

Is this me?

 

Right area... 

[Gary Prentice]

8 hours ago, Anno said:

Is this me?

 

Right area... 

Wrong area! You’d know if it was you because you’d get a phone call/email pedantically telling you that you’re wrongly applying the guidance and legislation and I want it sorted now! 

 

Would you invalid an application that clearly identifies the trees but  used different ref no’s to the TPO plan?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Hi Gary, the phrase including "brick-wall, head and banging" comes to mind here.

 

Of course you are correct  but it's not happening and seemingly no degree of "stamping and screaming," however justified, will help.

 

Does your client, i.e. the tree owner, not have a copy of the TPO plan / schedule?

 

Paul 

[Gary Prentice]

1 hour ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Hi Gary, the phrase including "brick-wall, head and banging" comes to mind here.

 

Of course you are correct  but it's not happening and seemingly no degree of "stamping and screaming," however justified, will help.

 

Does your client, i.e. the tree owner, not have a copy of the TPO plan / schedule?

 

Paul 

Sorry Paul, but stamping & screaming does help, as long as you can find the right person to direct your (my ) ire to.  I have managed to make our LA make changes in some of their more ‘unreasonable’ demands and expectations over the years, just by perseverance and knowing the laws and regs better than they often do. As long as the public believe it must be right because the LA ‘know what they’re doing’, the LA will continue to do it, even when it’s unreasonable, causes loss/hardship or additional work for applicants/agents.

 

Client doesn’t have a copy of the TPO

[Stubby]

1 minute ago, Gary Prentice said:

Sorry Paul, but stamping & screaming does help, as long as you can find the right person to direct your (my ) ire to.  I have managed to make our LA make changes in some of their more ‘unreasonable’ demands and expectations over the years, just by perseverance and knowing the laws and regs better than they often do. As long as the public believe it must be right because the LA ‘know what they’re doing’, the LA will continue to do it, even when it’s unreasonable, causes loss/hardship or additional work for applicants/agents.

 

Client doesn’t have a copy of the TPO

I want you on my side Gary ....if there is a war mate .

[Gary Prentice]

27 minutes ago, EdwardC said:

It says on the application form that when doing works to TPO'd trees the numbers used on the form and sketch plan should correspond with those on the 1st schedule, where it's available.

Ive no problem doing that, where it’s available, but too often it isn’t, or it is at an exorbitant cost (£25+)

Quote

Weren't LPA's supposed to be putting their TPO's on line by a certain date. Removing them isn't good. I managed to get our IT to link the TPO as shown on the mapping to a pdf of the Order so anyone could download it for free.

I believe so, but few/none of the planning departments I’ve spoken too seem to be aware of it.

Councils can't charge more than 10p per A4 sheet. So for a TPO about £1. But that won't stop some charging more. Electronic versions should be free.

Can’t! They shouldn’t but do! I really should dig out that case and post it to some parties who seem unaware of it

 

 

I think some LAs are still some way from getting everything into an electronic format, even for their own use. 

 

Im not being pedantic, well a little bit, about this planning department. I’ll post up their plan later and the current map, to illustrate how nonsensical it is to expect a homeowner, in particular, to work out what’s what.

[Gary Prentice]

15 minutes ago, Stubby said:

I want you on my side Gary ....if there is a war mate .

I’m too old to be conscripted, but I can nag or bore them to death

Edited February 20, 2018 by Gary Prentice