TPO Justification?

[Khriss]

1 hour ago, Gary Prentice said:

And on the plus side, I read yesterday that PINs are advertising for Arb inspectors. 

Who He ? K

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

The Planning Inspectorate, the body who undertake appeals. Previously done by arb inspectors, independently, but more recently by in-house staff (usually non-arbs) .

 

This is a positive move both in terms of arb specific inspectors and more resources = reduced time for appeals...hopefully.

 

[daltontrees]

2 hours ago, EdwardC said:

There are different levels of risk, and for the exception to apply it has to be right at the pointy end of risk i.e. "urgently necessary to remove an immediate risk of serious harm". And don't forget you have to inform the Council, and be able to demonstrate urgent, immediate, and serious.

I suppose it is is just part of the inherent unfairness of TPOs in the hands of the wrong Council. You could identify a hazard that' progressively getting worse, with an immovable target like the bungalow and the apprehensive occupants within it every night, but the Council might still prosecute for less than urgent risk reduction, or for harm less than serious. And the plain meaning of 'harm' excludes 'damage', (which is dealt with by way of foreseeable damage and compensation).  So a Council might just say 'get some insurance'. The compensation cover only lasts for a short while, meaning that if damage wasn't foreseeable at time of application, you need to keep re-applying to keep the compensation rights from increasing foreseeability of damage alive.

Is it not just a case of what an Inspector would consider at appeal to be disproportionate negative effects ion the tree owner relative to positive public amenity? Tempered by brinksmanship around the 'damage' and 'harm' thersholds if the Council's being a bit James Blunt about it?

I hvae had clients on the end of some really really dismal decisions, I pretty much advise now that they count application time as part of a delay process on the way to a sensible decision at appeal, with an approval meantime being a bonus. Councils vary, though, as to individual TOs and DCOs.

I recently had a case where the tree was not bad enough for the harm exception and not foreseeable enough for the damage one but it was approved based on my argument that reduction would considerably extend the tree's safe useful life. It can be persuasive.

[Gary Prentice]

20 hours ago, Khriss said:

Who He ? K

Do try to keep up mate...  

[Khriss]

On 08/06/2019 at 07:44, Gary Prentice said:

Do try to keep up mate...  

.....I live in a different world k

[Khriss]

On 08/06/2019 at 07:44, Gary Prentice said:

Do try to keep up mate...  

 

[Gary Prentice]

4 minutes ago, Khriss said:

.....I live in a different world k

You don't know how lucky you are, in that respect