Conservation refused advice required

[benedmonds]

51 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

I know that you don't need permission, etc, etc ,etc. 

 

Acknowledging that 'validate' is the incorrect terminology 

One of my pet peeves TO's telling tree owners they need permission to work on trees in a conservation area.. The TO could request clarification as to the spec or threaten to TPO the tree but how can you refuse a notification..?  

 

[Gary Prentice]

4 minutes ago, benedmonds said:

One of my pet peeves TO's telling tree owners they need permission to work on trees in a conservation area.. The TO could request clarification as to the spec or threaten to TPO the tree but how can you refuse a notification..?  

 

Don't get peeved, get even 

 

There's a planning officer at a LA that outright refuses to deal with me any more and has done so for several years. If I phone, as soon as she realises who she is talking to, she transfers the call. All I did was listen to her telling me what I had to do in an application before telling her that she was wrong, and the quoting chapter and verse as to why she was wrong.  (she must have been right, she works for the council )

 

She cut me off originally, then wrote to me to continue the exact incorrect statements. The letter was abysmal, spelling errors, missing words and barely readable. I sent it back with a note asking that someone with a basic understanding of the English language rewrite it and return it 

 

No idea why she fell out with though? 

[daltontrees]

Up here in a local Council area I have had a client tell me he had to apply in a CA, and because there was no Arb report the COuncil won't validate. Wrong upon wrong. I'm about the educate them.

 

But one needs to be careful. The Council might think they can threaten to TPO a notified tree if the correct form of notification doesn't come in. I believe that would be intra vires, if somewhat unethical. But if Council's are doing it deliberately (this particular Council I don't think is that smart) rather than ignorantly, they're probably bluffing. I always advise clients that this is a slight risk. Last year I called bluff with one Council; they were bluffing.

[Chris Day]

I try for the most part to call the LA's and speak to the tree officer prior to submitting a notification for a CA or an application for a TPO. Seems to work for me, they know it's in bound and what I am going to specify. For the LA's it doesn't work for I've got a measure of them before filling in the paperwork. But yes we work to m reduced, diameter of final pruning cut and spread/height on completion. 

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

On ‎31‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 18:03, essential said:

Been British standard for many years now

i.e. 2010, but was actually in planning portal guidance from 2008 (circa) see attached.

guidance_note-works_to_trees.pdf

[MattyF]

Hi All,
 
I have had a refusal back from a local council tree officer. The reason stated was rather than me stating that I intended to reduce the trees canopy by 20% (which I have always used successfully in the past), I now need to express my intentions in metres. Whilst i feel this is a bit petty obviously I will resubmit as advised. Can I ask if you all use metres and also for those converts amongst you whats 20% = what in metres!!

If it was NHDC I am surprised you haven’t come across this already.
Only bother I ever had was when they decided I could not reduced 35% off 5-6 previously hat racked birch, they said it was too much foliage and also was not a figure for height... my argument was that I’m well aware of the percentage of foliage to be left but they all had large cavity’s at the base of the old topping cuts that had no line or level and gave each primary limb a different percentage for every cut but all within 35% so that was a good starting point and better than listing every cut to be made... they still said just tell us how much you will be taking off in metres, my lesson learnt was just do that!

[Gary Prentice]

I get really peeved when I've completed the task of notifying, or applying, job done then it comes back for some reason and I have to spend more time on it. Maybe that's why I always get so pedantic and argumentative. 

 

But stepping back, I then think that maybe I've been a bit lazy in providing information accurately and correctly in the first place -instead of doing the job properly and acting professionally.  The regulations are written as they are for a purpose, which is also to provide evidence to support prosecution where there has been a contravention by establishing empirical heights/spreads. Maybe all of our first concerns should be to do our own job properly and professionally, before getting stressed about what are really minor issues?

 

 

 

Then argue until we're blue in the face when LAs misapply the legislation 

[donnk]

just guess it. Not like they have the capacity to check it after the event.

 

Useless council workers, sack the lot!

[Anno]

that's that sorted...