Another Validation 'Refusal'

[Adam M]

1 hour ago, EdwardC said:

Actually the charge is set by the Regulations not local authorities. However, all the Regulations say is that the charge must be 'reasonable'.  What is reasonable was determined in David Markinson v The Information Commissioner. Below is a link to the decision. 

 

So why do many charge more. Because they know the only choice people have is to challenge them in the Courts or Tribunals, which the vast majority of the council tax payers won't, or can't, do, so they figure can get away with it, which they do. This leads to a corporate belief that; bad practice/maladministration/abuse of power is justified so it becomes the norm and, that they, the LPA, are above the law and or they write the law.

 

I challenge any LPA Officer to justify why they charge more than the amount considered reasonable by the Tribunal.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i161/Markinson.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjgg5iUpPHZAhUFUlAKHZNeCiUQFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw0pIJRCV-w6sekLZ69x5QuX

We have ours available to download online. But, it's not quite perfect; sometimes it's the confirmed tpo uploaded, other times a single page confirming the confirmation. Sometimes it's not uploaded at all. On the whole, it's not that bad and is mostly useful. Why charge for stuff which would otherwise be freely available? If its a ballache to fish all the tpo out, that's an admin issue not a cost to be transferred to the public. 

[Adam M]

Done at least an hour looking up FOI's relating to TPO's just now. The red wine made it quite enthralling. Just bladdy send them when people ask for them if you haven't got them online. 

[Gary Prentice]

9 hours ago, Adam M said:

Done at least an hour looking up FOI's relating to TPO's just now. The red wine made it quite enthralling. Just bladdy put them online. 

Fixed that for ya

 

Some of the Manchester metropolitan boroughs have quite good mapping, some did have previously but have actually removed them more recently, and some websites have been promising that they’re coming for a few years. Frustrating at times.

 

Some LAs will send a PDF on submission of an email FOC, some like Stockport, charge. 

 

Maybe things will improve.

[Gary Prentice]

15 hours ago, EdwardC said:

That would be very interesting, especially if you're serving an S211. How could they not deal with one posted, hand delivered, or emailed. By refusing to validate it?

Don’t be putting ideas in my head.

 

That just makes me want to test that.

[Khriss]

...why Gary - I believe you should , plus a FOI request too - they have to answer it ! Keep them busy K  ( Only thing that twat T.Blair ever did that was any good )

[Wolfie]

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

I very rarely have a problem with the TO's, almost all refusals that i've had are for trees that I also think deserved retaining but the client was adamant they wanted rid.
Most of my problems have been dealing with the councils that filter calls and emails through their general call centre or have inexperience personnel in their application support who invalidate an application for ridiculous reasons.

It was a great shame when you moved on from SCDC, but they still remain one of the better councils that i deal will and all CA and TPO information is available online, making it really easy.

I mostly ask clients to submit applications now in HDC since Brian and Matt have left. I also hear that some local contractors aren't bothering with application now as its become such a hassle dealing with that council.

Best wishes,
Ed

[Gary Prentice]

23 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

I also hear that some local contractors aren't bothering with application now as its become such a hassle dealing with that council.

Ignoring statutory protection or getting the owner to apply?

[Gary Prentice]

2 hours ago, EdwardC said:

Which of the following constitutes the LAWFUL serving of a notice under S211. (Clue, there may be more than one correct answer). LAWFUL is stressed for a reason, because I mean LAWFUL. You may wish to have a peruse of the primary and secondary legislation.

 

Assume each notice contains sufficient information to identify the tree, it's the only beech in the front garden of 1 Acacia Avenue, and a detailed description of the works, remove/fell.

 

1.Via the Planning Portal 

2. By completing and posting to the LPA the application for tree works: works to trees subject to a tree preservation order (TPO) and/or notification of proposed works to trees in a conservation area. Town and Country Planning Act 1990 form

3. By completing and emailing to the LPA the application for tree works: works to trees subject to a tree preservation order (TPO) and/or notification of proposed works to trees in a conservation area. Town and Country Planning Act 1990 form

4. By completing the application for tree works: works to trees subject to a tree preservation order (TPO) and/or notification of proposed works to trees in a conservation area. Town and Country Planning Act 1990 form and handing it in at the LPA offices

5. It's Friday night and your down the local. It's closing time and you bump into the tree officer. You've both had twelvety pints. You tell them of your intention to remove/fell the beech in the front garden of 1 Acacia Ave.

6. By writing a letter and posting it to the LPA

7. By writing a letter and handing it in at the LPA offices

8. You go to the LPA offices and tell the person at the customer contact center of your intention to remove/fell the beech in the front garden of 1 Acacia Ave.

9. You telephone the LPA offices and tell the customer contact telephonist of your intention to remove/fell the beech in the front garden of 1 Acacia ave.

10. By emailing the LPA

Without perusing other legislation, I''ll guess those not bolded are lawful because I think the notification has to be written.

[Wolfie]

Ignoring statutory protection or getting the owner to apply?

It's only hearsay but i believe ignoring it altogether

[Gary Prentice]

6 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

It's only hearsay but i believe ignoring it altogether

Not good!