211 notice details.

[daltontrees]

Sounds like the other Councils are habitually doing it wrong, so now you have encountered one that is doing it right it seems wrong.

 

Best give them a proper spec, because if the Council has to TPO the trees because of inadequate spec, customer will quite rightly be extremely pissed off with you.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

 

1 hour ago, Gary Prentice said:

I figure that I'll write an exact work spec for the client in the quote, which goes to site with the climber. Just copy that into the notice or application. It helps the TO and he/she will like you for it.

2 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

Best give them a proper spec, because if the Council has to TPO the trees because of inadequate spec, customer will quite rightly be extremely pissed off with you.

?? those 2 comments both make really good sense!

[Joe Newton]

I once had a planning app consented with a note that said "we request the local green space officer be present to oversee the works" or something you that effect...

[skyhuck]

21 minutes ago, Joe Newton said:

I once had a planning app consented with a note that said "we request the local green space officer be present to oversee the works" or something you that effect...

This was a "notice" not an "application"

Requirement to inform TO of date of works, so they attend or meet beforehand is not unusual IME for a TPO app, but generally if you know the TO they wave it, IME.

[Coletti]

Sounds like the other Councils are habitually doing it wrong, so now you have encountered one that is doing it right it seems wrong.

 

Best give them a proper spec, because if the Council has to TPO the trees because of inadequate spec, customer will quite rightly be extremely pissed off with you.

Okay then, so in this case, I have not given enough info or detailed enough spec but what do you say about they last time they kicked up.

 

My application read "to reduce 5no eucalyptus by up to 3m in height to suitable growth ponts and reduce extended laterals back to inline with the main canopy to suitable growth points" again, in this case they wouldn't validate the notice till they had exact start and finished heights. They argued..."how do we know how much you have taken off if you don't tell us start and finished heights" to which I replied "you will see start height when you make a site visit and you can invisible finished height from there". What they seem to lack is basic common sense in my opinion

 

Edit...

 

I will guarantee no tpo would ever be served to any of the trees in question so no need to worry about that. My actual suggestion to the client was to fell the sycamore and the oak and 're plant as they are shadowed by the conifers and as such have become far from specimen trees and I can do no more than give my best suggestion

[Coletti]

 

 

 

 

Best give them a proper spec, because if the Council has to TPO the trees because of inadequate spec, customer will quite rightly be extremely pissed off with you.

 

Customer will be pissed off anyway. Notice was submitted nearly 4 weeks ago, first I've heard from them is today and they tell me it hasn't been validated yet despite it being a 6 week process and were nearly 4 weeks in. Where do I stand with that?

 

[Joe Newton]

2 hours ago, skyhuck said:

This was a "notice" not an "application"

Requirement to inform TO of date of works, so they attend or meet beforehand is not unusual IME for a TPO app, but generally if you know the TO they wave it, IME.

I took it literally as a request, not a condition of the consent, so I politely denied their request and carried on anyway. 

[Gary Prentice]

24 minutes ago, Joe Newton said:

I took it literally as a request, not a condition of the consent, so I politely denied their request and carried on anyway. 

I'm not even sure that that would be a enforceable planning condition to start with. 

 

I wouldn't want to be waiting for a council officer (probably on flexi-time) to turn up around mid-morning before cracking on with the job. If they wouldn't agree to a pre-start date meeting, just to discuss the works, I'd politely state that on the day would be fine, but to comply with H&S regs you need a site specific risk assessment and Method Statement. Asking for a CSCS/Rolo card might be pushing it a bit. I don't know, but kind of think the need to oversee things on the start day might diminish a bit.

[Gary Prentice]

2 hours ago, Coletti said:

Okay then, so in this case, I have not given enough info or detailed enough spec but what do you say about they last time they kicked up.

 

My application read "to reduce 5no eucalyptus by up to 3m in height to suitable growth ponts and reduce extended laterals back to inline with the main canopy to suitable growth points" again, in this case they wouldn't validate the notice till they had exact start and finished heights. They argued..."how do we know how much you have taken off if you don't tell us start and finished heights" to which I replied "you will see start height when you make a site visit and you can invisible finished height from there". What they seem to lack is basic common sense in my opinion

What I think you should have done is to quote the T&CPA/Regs or the current guidance.  There is no obligation to survey the existing height/crown spread and I think that would be generally considered as an unreasonable demand if you went beyond the LA in this.

 

 

Every time I get a refusal to validate because a planning officer wants something that isn't obligatory I fight it just out of principle. It's not hard to know the regs better than them, but they will argue the toss because 'they are the council' so must be right ! You need to be persistent to make them concede that they have no authority when they don't. If the department won't play ball you just go up the chain to you get it sorted. I had a great deal of satisfaction last year/year before with the head of the council. Keep at it because in the long run it makes things easier for yourself, not having to mess about with unnecessary info in apps/notices.

 

Some of the developers and their planning consultants are saying that asking for more information, more surveys and reports or refusing to validate an application because of some spurious missing detail is becoming a common ploy to extend deadlines beyond statutory periods by understaffed planning departments. 

 

Just to spoil your day a bit more, I got an application determined in less than two weeks last month. 

2 hours ago, Coletti said:

E

 

[Joe Newton]

6 hours ago, Gary Prentice said:

I'm not even sure that that would be a enforceable planning condition to start with. 

 

I wouldn't want to be waiting for a council officer (probably on flexi-time) to turn up around mid-morning before cracking on with the job. If they wouldn't agree to a pre-start date meeting, just to discuss the works, I'd politely state that on the day would be fine, but to comply with H&S regs you need a site specific risk assessment and Method Statement. Asking for a CSCS/Rolo card might be pushing it a bit. I don't know, but kind of think the need to oversee things on the start day might diminish a bit.

 That's kind of how I saw it. Just the planning department pushing their remit a bit.

 

Like I said that worded it as a "request" not a condition, so I gave it due consideration and carried on.