A question for the LA TOs (and anyone else!)

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

That all makes perfect sense Jules. 
 

im now thinking (not in direct relation to this example, but more broadly to try and get closer to that ever elusive definitive answer ?)

 

(a) acknowledging the inability of current planning law to remedy and likely inadequacies in LAs checks and controls, there still remains the false representation for financial gain and proceeds of crime routes. 
 

Pretty big hammer but....  Applicant and / or agent say No/No and gain consent, house value increases by XX. That’s a financial gain by false representation. 
 

LA records show TPOs, planning app says No/No, work undertaken and property value increase. All the records are there - open & shut case unless they were to somehow claim ignorance. 
 

(b) there is no way a chartered professional architect and the planning officer  could have NOT seen the TPO trees that they MUST have walked within 3m of when they did site visits. 
 

 

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

8 hours ago, monkeybusiness said:

Gnarlyoak’s post made me smile - I’m guessing he wasn’t aware of your ‘prickly inquisitive forthright bugger’ persona! 
Keep up the good work - interesting post, I’m looking forward to seeing how it develops. 

Prickly you say......!

 

People normally shorten that a bit when I’m on a rant ???

[Khriss]

11 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

No offence taken - hide like a rhino!

 

 

...... How the hell do you hide a Rhino, Kev!! They ****************king massive !    K

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

2 hours ago, Khriss said:

...... How the hell do you hide a Rhino, Kev!! They ****************king massive !    K

It’s a bit savage, and a truly dreadful example of human nature, but you don’t really need to hide them, just cut the horn off and they become invisible to the barbarous bastards that hunt them for trophy or oriental medicine.

[Khriss]

56 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

It’s a bit savage, and a truly dreadful example of human nature, but you don’t really need to hide them, just cut the horn off and they become invisible to the barbarous bastards that hunt them for trophy or oriental medicine.

sadlyy  very true    K

[Stubby]

7 hours ago, Khriss said:

...... How the hell do you hide a Rhino, Kev!! They ****************king massive !    K

Probably in the front of his trousers ...

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

28 minutes ago, Stubby said:

Probably in the front of his trousers ...

Only after it’s escaped from your wallet!

[daltontrees]

13 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

That all makes perfect sense Jules. 
 

im now thinking (not in direct relation to this example, but more broadly to try and get closer to that ever elusive definitive answer ?)

 

(a) acknowledging the inability of current planning law to remedy and likely inadequacies in LAs checks and controls, there still remains the false representation for financial gain and proceeds of crime routes. 
 

Pretty big hammer but....  Applicant and / or agent say No/No and gain consent, house value increases by XX. That’s a financial gain by false representation. 
 

LA records show TPOs, planning app says No/No, work undertaken and property value increase. All the records are there - open & shut case unless they were to somehow claim ignorance. 
 

(b) there is no way a chartered professional architect and the planning officer  could have NOT seen the TPO trees that they MUST have walked within 3m of when they did site visits. 

But ask yourself this. Given that the planner is duty bound to check on all planning policies and material considerations for any application, does he see the 'no' box ticked and think 'I don't need to check for TPOs then'? And another question, when he sees the box ticked, does he decide to conduct the site visit with some sideways blinkers on that ensure he cannot see any trees?

 

Really, what is the point of the question on the form? It could only result in prosecution if the planner HAS to rely on the answer.

[Khriss]

On 22/08/2020 at 09:06, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

That all makes perfect sense Jules. 
 

im now thinking (not in direct relation to this example, but more broadly to try and get closer to that ever elusive definitive answer ?)

 

(a) acknowledging the inability of current planning law to remedy and likely inadequacies in LAs checks and controls, there still remains the false representation for financial gain and proceeds of crime routes. 
 

Pretty big hammer but....  Applicant and / or agent say No/No and gain consent, house value increases by XX. That’s a financial gain by false representation. 
 

LA records show TPOs, planning app says No/No, work undertaken and property value increase. All the records are there - open & shut case unless they were to somehow claim ignorance. 
 

(b) there is no way a chartered professional architect and the planning officer  could have NOT seen the TPO trees that they MUST have walked within 3m of when they did site visits. 
 

 

 

Nope, no defence in Law, ignorance ? Judge would just ask what you were thinking - filling in Planning apps, in 'ignorance'    ?  K

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

On 22/08/2020 at 22:37, daltontrees said:

But ask yourself this. Given that the planner is duty bound to check on all planning policies and material considerations for any application, does he see the 'no' box ticked and think 'I don't need to check for TPOs then'? And another question, when he sees the box ticked, does he decide to conduct the site visit with some sideways blinkers on that ensure he cannot see any trees?

 

Really, what is the point of the question on the form? It could only result in prosecution if the planner HAS to rely on the answer.

I think I get your point there....

 

The 'responsibility' for checking validity of submitted documents certainly lies with the LA - agreed.  (we know how that often goes....)

 

Are you contending then that the applicant / agent bears no responsibility for false / inaccurate entries?

 

I know it's just pushing the point to the extreme, but, well, you know....