Planning committees

[Gary Prentice]

Can anyone point me in the right direction to understand what LAs are obliged to do when dealing with tree works apps?

 

A local authority appears to work more or less as a dictatorship. A single TO determines an application. Applications and notifications aren't publicised, so neighbours only become aware that, for example, trees are being felled when contractors arrive and 660's are broke out. 

 

I'm submitting to remove a 19m dawn redwood, situated between and damaging the driveway of the owner and the drive of the neighbour. Long story short, I know that the LA will want to retain and will pretty much ignore any reason and/or evidence provided to support its removal. Going on to appeal, subsequent to a refusal, is too long winded and here is also no guarantee of a successful conclusion IME.

 

Neighbours are supportive of the trees removal and are preparing representations in support of that. 

 

If a council officer, the TO, has delegated powers, do representations/objections to an application force a hearing by the planning committee? I'm thinking that it's more likely hat I'll get a more 'objective' determination if the decision in front of the committee rather than a TO with a 'retain at all costs' mindset.

 

Thanks in anticipation.

[Gary Prentice]

12 hours ago, EdwardC said:

As a tree officer I would robustly resist such requests.

Oh!  Why would you? Although being generally supportive of the TPO system I feel that it isn't always administered fairly.

 

A landowner has an object on his property that they don't have absolute control of because of the amenity that it provides to the public at large. Is it fair that should the owner want/need to remove it, that then the council just fails to implement some of the safeguards out in place to ensure that the owner gets the opportunity to do so?

 

The LA concerned doesn't, AFAIK, notify 'interested parties' when even serving a TPO, allowing those who may be affected by their decision to voice an objection and then continue to control the situation as they see fit without allowing others any say at all.  

 

Is there any wonder that so many appear to be against tree protection, if it's administered the way it is?

[Gary Prentice]

22 minutes ago, EdwardC said:

Because everybody should be treated equally. It's been my experience that some people would prefer to ask the question of a councillor of their acquaintance, who has one eye on re-election rather than having an unbiased opinion and being treated fairly like everyone else.

I've been aware of  'councillor pressure' on TO's a few times myself, so understand your viewpoint, but that isn't my intention as a means to an end. What I'd like to do, if possible, is to get to a more open for consideration than a single officer, with delegated powers, who, it appears, is of a particular mindset. 

There's a big difference between want and need. There's every opportunity to put the case if you want to remove a TPO'd tree. Apply, and if refused appeal. If there's a real need, then it would be covered by one of the exceptions.

Appeals take forever, as you well know. Don't you see in problem, that the initial application is decided unilaterally by an officer who may be of a particular mindset and whose word is basically law - forcing the applicant to continue on into an appeal system that, in my own experience seems unfavourably biased towards the LA?

 

The exceptions are too vague. The mention in the guideline about considering engineering solutions doesn't begin to address what level of expense an injured party should go to before simply exerting their right to abate a nuisance. Not helpful at all. 

Sorry Edward, but I'm a bit narked at the moment after a of refusal concerning an elm that was refused despite actionable damage to neighbours property as well as damage to the applicants. At a site meeting I demonstrated that there was no engineering solution available, at least in my knowledge of the usual options. Even should there have been, it was almost certain that a solution would be short lived before damage would reoccur. I also pointed out that it would be unfortunate that if after spending a small fortune, the tree died. The TO  wouldn't be moved. He wouldn't be moved, Appeal it! (AKA, pass the buck) Six weeks on the tree is half dead, due to DED.

 

After submitting a 211 notice, the LA served a TPO on an elm the owner wanted to fell. Four weeks later I looked at it again and it, as well as a 2nd elm on the site, are exhibiting DED symptoms. I submitted for the tree contractor, so I'm away from the situation a bit, but I simply can't be bothered much more. Let them confirm the TPO, I don't really care.  

22 minutes ago, EdwardC said:

Those who are considered to have an interst is set out in law. Changes were made to the definition of those with an interest a few years ago. From what I've read this morning in the guidelines, 'persons with interest' are only those who might remove or lop a protected tree. So my interpretation of that is only the owner of a neighbouring property which the trees overhanging. Ie. probably one person The Council must follow the requirements of the legislation, which maybe different to what a member of the public thinks they should be doing. If they don't then there is the opportunity to challenge the Order. You need very deep pockets to challenge an order Edward. From my brief research this morning, the guidelines contain a lot of words like consider, may, might etc. There doesn't seem to be that much openness in the system.

 

[Khriss]

Sadly the whole TPO thing was an immediate response and protection of a threatened tree. But it now seems to be a management option regardless of a policy or management plan in place. Feel for you Gary- but then I got badgers on me plate at the moment ? k

[Gary Prentice]

Just now, Khriss said:

Sadly the whole TPO thing was an immediate response and protection of a threatened tree. But it now seems to be a management option regardless of a policy or management plan in place. Feel for you Gary- but then I got badgers on me plate at the moment ? k

That sounds like a decadent  repast. How do you cook them and what do they taste like? 

 

I won't accept 'chicken'. 

[Khriss]

Bit tangy. But need a bigger slow cooker as they don't fit easy. Chop head off- de claw n wipe its arse. 6hrs at 160.C k

[Gary Prentice]

13 minutes ago, Khriss said:

Bit tangy. But need a bigger slow cooker as they don't fit easy. Chop head off- de claw n wipe its arse. 6hrs at 160.C k

I prefer them roasted with wine, stuffed with Quail eggs and red squirrels.. 

[Khriss]

....... Now yr just being silly- 'tree chicken' n 'burrow beef' on same plate! Bet yr opening the Chardonae  with that! Get out of my kitchen ? k

Edited August 3, 2019 by Khriss
Threads derailed in under 2.5 seconds. Glove puppet show extra.

[Stubby]

4 hours ago, EdwardC said:

 You may disagree with the tree officer, but that's what they're paid to do.

 

 

Ah . The TO is paid to disagree . Now I get it ?

[peatff]

On 03/08/2019 at 10:36, Gary Prentice said:

I prefer them roasted with wine, stuffed with Quail eggs and red squirrels.. 

 

Red Kite eggs with red squirrel surely.