TPO Application time......

[Gary Prentice]

Just now, benedmonds said:

The planning inspectorate is even more tardy (under-resourced) then the worse lpas. They work at a glacial pace..  

Think they're advertising for arb inspectors again, so that might hopefully improve.

[Gary Prentice]

4 hours ago, EdwardC said:

One other s211 thing to think about: If the LPA write to the notifier informing them that they have no objection to the proposed work, there is no two-year period within which  the works must be undertaken. I.e. the permission remains valid indefinitely. The two-year period only applies if the LPA allows the six-week notice period to expire, and don't TPO the tree.

Have you a reference for that Edward?

Below is an extract from my LA in response to a recent notification.  Are they doing it wrong? 

 

 

I refer to your notice received on 26/04/19 informing us that you propose to carry out certain works to trees at the above address, which is located within the Uppermill Conservation Area.  The Council has no objection to this work being carried out subject to compliance with the following specifications (see attached plan for location of trees): 

 

 

This authorisation applies solely to the works scheduled above. Further written notice must be to the Council of any intended variation to the above works or of other works to either the above mentioned trees or other trees on your land. given

 

1.    The consent hereby granted is valid for a period of two years from the date of this decision.

 

[skyhuck]

On 14/07/2019 at 16:46, openspaceman said:

I'm a bit interested as my boss has just tried to make a 211 notification via the planning portal, in fact he gave up and handed it in by letter.

 

He says what it showed was that an application via the portal cannot proceed without a tree report and that has to be by someone with a "qualification". So no point trying to make a notification as it seems to use the same criteria as needed for a TPO application.

 

In a past job I seldom worried about TPOs as we were working on behalf of a statutory undertaking, I'd liaise with the TO and then getb on with the work.

 

My friend says he writes a report and signs it off and it's never queried, he has a BSc in geology.

 

So if the application gets made, is validated and then the report is queried does everything have to go back to day one? Or will the PINS judgement  take no note of a poor reason for the work.

I think he may have been confused. When submitting a 211 notice via the planning portal there is a requirement for a sketch plan and not submitting this prevents completion. But there is no legal requirement for a plan, so long as its obvious which and where the tree/s is/are. IE if its the only tree on the property etc. You can however click "by post" which will then allow completion of the notification. You may need to ring the council and point out you are not actually posting a plan and why or they may hold things up waiting for it or I guess you could mention in the description of the work that you are not sending a plan. 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Some interesting points have been presented - eg the inapplicability of 2 year limit (didn’t know that, could be useful in the future even though most 211s are done fairly quickly after 6 weeks just because that’s how it is) but can’t help but feel the cause of the problem here is the subjects inability to grasp, what I’ve always found to be, a fairly simple, quick and easy online submission process via the planning portal. 

 

Failing to grasp the requirements of the system doesn’t (necessarily) mean the system is flawed....

[Gary Prentice]

2 hours ago, EdwardC said:

Hi Gary. It's to do with the wording in s211 (3)(b) TCPA.

 

S211 (3)(b)(i) says you can do the works if the council cosent to it, as per your councils letter. However, and importantly, there's no time limit.

 

S211 (3)(b)(ii) says you can do the works after six weeks, but in this circumstance, imposes the two year time limit.

 

Your council is effectively imposing a condition, which they can't do, but many do it this way.

Thanks for this Edward, strangely enough it's the first I've heard of it (every day is a school day).

 

It seems a bit of a loophole.

If the council don't oppose a notice to fell but the notifier leaves the tree, which then matures to provide a much more significant amenity benefit to its surroundings although being situated in a conservation area its no longer protected - unless the LA later decide to TPO it because they recognise its increased significance.  I imagine there's a lot of room there for the LA to think trees are covered by the CA status 'forgetting' that they consented removal years previously. 

[Spideylj]

I think the point I was trying to make is that it makes more sense for the TO and the arborist to work together in a more pragmatic way.

 

Although a s211 notice does not take any particular form the guidance notes states that 'a notice submitted' to the LPA.  You're effectively serving a legal notice on the LPA and it should be in writing (whether that is a handwritten note, typed on posh paper, email or standard form).  In my opinion, I don't think a verbal conversation would be adequate to call a notice.  It would be like a TO telling someone verbally to plant a tree and calling it a Tree Replacement Notice.

 

As for the two year rule for s211.  You're right.  If the Council gives consent then the two year rule does not apply and the work can take place whenever. 

 

However, if in the hypothetical scenario above, that the tree was left and the tree was later found to be worthy of a TPO then the TPO would stand.  TPO's are only challenged in the high court (would you client run the risk of that and its associated costs?).  The recourse would be for the tree owner to apply for the same work again and if the work is refused appealed to PINS.  It would be an interesting one would that.  That being said, if the tree was in a condition or situation were it couldn't be TPO'd in the first place would it be worthy of a TPO later?  Shouldn't the TO be looking to the future when making decisions especially where s211's are concerned?

[Gary Prentice]

2 minutes ago, Spideylj said:

I think the point I was trying to make is that it makes more sense for the TO and the arborist to work together in a more pragmatic way. I'm starting to like you! 

 

Although a s211 notice does not take any particular form the guidance notes states that 'a notice submitted' to the LPA.  You're effectively serving a legal notice on the LPA and it should be in writing (whether that is a handwritten note, typed on posh paper, email or standard form).  In my opinion, I don't think a verbal conversation would be adequate to call a notice. 

 

It would be like a TO telling someone verbally to plant a tree and calling it a Tree Replacement Notice. Some LAs would like you to think that that was the case! 

 

As for the two year rule for s211.  You're right.  If the Council gives consent then the two year rule does not apply and the work can take place whenever. 

 

However, if in the hypothetical scenario above, that the tree was left and the tree was later found to be worthy of a TPO then the TPO would stand. You've lost me there.Do you mean that a TPO made at some later date, after the council consented its removal? I get that obviously. TPO's are only challenged in the high court (would you client run the risk of that and its associated costs?).  The recourse would be for the tree owner to apply for the same work again and if the work is refused appealed to PINS.  It would be an interesting one would that.  That being said, if the tree was in a condition or situation were it couldn't be TPO'd in the first place would it be worthy of a TPO later?  Of course it could. A small young tree is generally viewed as of little significance and easily replaced. But as it matures it gains more significance to its surroundings which may also have changed. Maybe the maturing tree has become more publicly visible due to changes in the surroundings. Shouldn't the TO be looking to the future when making decisions especially where s211's are concerned? One would hope so, which is why I find the legislation odd. On one hand you've two years to fell, on the other the LA are obliged to continue to assess the 'worth' of the tree and to TPO it if appropriate because it's no linger protected by the CA designation. It seems a bit of an anomaly that creates work, whereas if there was a time limit to fell, the same as a tree works app, the onus of continuing assessment of 'worth' would be removed.

 

[openspaceman]

21 minutes ago, Spideylj said:

I don't think a verbal conversation would be adequate to call a notice.

Most conversations use verbs as do written notices.?

 

 

[Spideylj]

Cheers Gary!