Another Validation 'Refusal'

[Adam M]

The £17 difference is clearly a restapelling surcharge, justified by the training required for the safe use of the destapelequipinghosen ticket. Either that or they keep different parts of the tpo in different locations, likely in the interest of preserving public amenity or something. 

Edited March 13, 2018 by Adam M

[Khriss]

...oh and Gary , take yr hat off in doors , or you wont feel the benefit K

[donnk]

On 19/02/2018 at 19:09, Gary Prentice said:

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?

they m

On 19/02/2018 at 19:09, Gary Prentice said:

 

 

 

they may be wrong in terms of the law and paperwork BUT its your time they are successfully wasting. 

 

With Councils you have to bob and weave, pick your fights.

[Roz]

Call me odd as a TO but I find it really sad when I read the frustration you allseem to go through - I know everyone's different and councils don't do themselves any favors but I have always seen the role of the TO within reason to 'enable' in the respect that its about the tree(s).

Validation only requires a sketch plan (among other details) to identify the trees on site not for them to be identified against the TPO, I am guessing many of the TPOs  are ambiguous but our role (or part of it) is to manage the TPOs and therefore interpret the data we work with to enable.  I have argued at two councils I have worked at that a copy of the TPO documents should be free - the schedule and plan as TPO files are public...........doesn't really help you though as your not on my patch

[Gary Prentice]

Roz, your odd.

 

Its seldom an issue with TOs, it’s normally problems with planners or the planning department.

 

With Tree Officers we might have differing professional opinions, but that’s what the appeal system is for. Or used to be when there was Arb consultants involved.

 

 

[Stubby]

5 hours ago, EdwardC said:

You've refused to validate my TPO  application, why.

 

It doesn't include details of the TPO.

 

I don't have them. Can you send me a copy of the Order.

 

That will be £39.00 please.

 

Are you saying that you hold information that you want me to give back to you. And you're going to charge me £39.00 so I can have that  information in order to return it to you. Do you not think that is an abuse of power.

I think it is .  Never had anything remotely like this with Henry the TO for Chichester .

[Gary Prentice]

18 hours ago, EdwardC said:

You've refused to validate my TPO  application, why.

 

It doesn't include details of the TPO.

 

I don't have them. Can you send me a copy of the Order.

 

That will be £39.00 please.

 

Are you saying that you hold information that you want me to give back to you. And you're going to charge me £39.00 so I can have that  information in order to return it to you. Do you not think that is an abuse of power.

Sorry, I think I confused things. Stockport wasn't the LA I had issue with. I came across their fee structure when submitting a 211 notification for something else.

 

Another topic entirely, but Stockport have only accepted applications via the Planning Portal for a few years now. I wonder at the validity of that at times?

[Nimby]

I'm also a TO that finds these threads really frustrating. We deal with applications and notifications as quickly as possible, sometimes the same day! Google street view helps to speed things up at times but for us it's about having confidence in our local contractors. A lot of tree work is subjective, give and take is the key. Work with us and we work with you, which makes all our jobs easier and frees time to deal with other matters. A lot of our local contractors take pride in their work regardless of TPO's or CA's.

 

Sadly, the TO is close to extinction and problems will only get worse as public services are diminishing.

 

For the record, we charge £10+VAT for a copy of the order which is set by the Planning Support team. I do, however, send out maps and/or schedules to contractors free of charge that don't need a full copy of the order.      

Edited March 16, 2018 by Nimby

[Gary Prentice]

1 hour ago, Nimby said:

 

Sadly, the TO is close to extinction and problems will only get worse as public services are diminishing.

Won’t they just!

 

 

I hope that nobody has construed this thread or any of my posts as being anti- Tree officer.

 

ive met and dealt with a lot and I have a great sympathy for the position most of them are in, their lack of resources and support of both legal and planning departments.

Any disagreements that we have are purely professional and usually matters of opinion. We’re sometimes at opposite ends of the spectrum because I’m working to achieve my clients ends (whether I agree with them or not) and the TO is looking to protect and improve. You win some you lose some.

 

God help us when planners, with two days training, take over the role of the in house arboriculturist.

[Anno]

'Sadly, the TO is close to extinction and problems will only get worse as public services are diminishing. '

 

Enjoy your weekend...