Another Validation 'Refusal'

[Jon Heuch]

12 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

 

I did get a response from my response, to the invalid application letter, so I rang the officer. She was adamant that there was a requirement to use corresponding numbers, which since I now had a copy of the TPO would have been petty to continue to argue about.

 

If the authority will email one, I'll comply - I can't do with the aggravation and time involved to argue the point. Besides, It's interesting to read the orders 

 

 I do still believe that it must be difficult for the householder, with little tree identification experience, to comply even with the schedule plan. I've attached the TPO plan, from '95 and the current trees in the area cobered by the plan.

TPO Schedule for arbtalk.pdf

Gary

 

That sort of schedule (T2 is so many metres from T1 etc) becomes extremely difficult to work out when trees T4, T5 and T6 have been lost and you want to find T7 (or you don't have access as they are now in separate gardens!

[Gary Prentice]

46 minutes ago, Jon Heuch said:

Gary

 

That sort of schedule (T2 is so many metres from T1 etc) becomes extremely difficult to work out when trees T4, T5 and T6 have been lost and you want to find T7 (or you don't have access as they are now in separate gardens!

And the applicant can't differentiate between a lime and a beech...

But they have the TPO and must use the corresponding numbers 

 

I suspect that the order was made just prior to the residential development and was probably confirmed, 18 months later, after the houses were built. I know everyone's claiming short staffing and budgets constraints, but has this been the position for the last twenty years? There's going to have to come a time when these orders come under review and get updated.

 

 

[Pete W]

Just out of curiosity I did a map overlay of the two plans.

It would appear that the trees are T5 and T6 but that would mean the Lime is a Beech and the Beech is a Lime

 

 

 

[Gary Prentice]

36 minutes ago, Pete W said:

Just out of curiosity I did a map overlay of the two plans.

It would appear that the trees are T5 and T6 but that would mean the Lime is a Beech and the Beech is a Lime

 

 

 

The beech must be T5, the only one in the row. (Assuming that the tpo plan was correct originally?) I'm not sure now how accurately I've plotted the trees, I just chucked them on to post, but as there's only two trees in the garden it's a bit immaterial.

 

Can you see where I'm coming from in the LAs persistence. And outdated maps?

[Pete W]

I'm with you on this Gary, I used the overlay to show that it's bloody near impossible to correctly identify individual trees from the original 22 year old tpo. Also was the original correct? We'll never know. As for the task of updating the orders it's much easier now. Mobile, tablet or laptop - gps photo. straight onto mapping database. onto next one.

[Anno]

15 hours ago, EdwardC said:

Update onto new model order, identify those with an interest, draft statement of reasons, prepare plan, send to legal to serve, deal with the objections, draft committee report, attend committee meeting, deal with decision, inform interested parties, assuming no challenge, move onto next one.

WORD!

 

[Gary Prentice]

15 hours ago, EdwardC said:

Update onto new model order, identify those with an interest, draft statement of reasons, prepare plan, send to legal to serve, deal with the objections, draft committee report, attend committee meeting, deal with decision, inform interested parties, assuming no challenge, move onto next one.

Excuse my ignorance, but why do you have to;

• identify those with an interest,
• draft a statement of reasons,
• deal with objections,
• inform interested parties

etc, etc?

 

If there is already an order in place and if you're not increasing the number of trees within that order, but simply updating it (introducing current maps and/or un-protecting any trees that no longer merit protection) why is it so complicated? 

 

I know that I should know the mechanisms, revoking, amending etc, better, but it seems an awful lot of fuss!  I've probably got this view because our LA officers seem to have an awful lot of 'executive power'.

[Gary Prentice]

So basically it’s a case of revoking the original order and creating a new one?

[blueroot]

Cut the crap...if yer getting paid...drop the thing..ffs

[Gary Prentice]

24 minutes ago, blueroot said:

Cut the crap...if yer getting paid...drop the thing..ffs

Thanks for your valuable input...