Jump to content

Log in or register to remove this advert

Anybody ever heard of a "retrospective exemption for felling" [quote] a TPO tree which DIDN'T qualify under an exemption?


kevinjohnsonmbe
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

I don’t see how it can get retrospective consent given the TOs comments. 
 

It would surely need to be withdrawn or amended - it can’t (realistically) be approved by PO with those TO comments. 

I didn't see the TO comments. But based on what has been said by Dan (the double negatives), it seems it would have qualified for exemption. If so, and following my own logic, the application should not be determined, because there shouldn't have been an application. But conversely the comments of the TO (as given by Dan) suggest that lesser works than felling would have sufficed, and therefore it shouldn't have been exempt.

 

So if there has been a breach, prosecution ought to follow unless ther is no point namely that an application would have been approved. But the TO comment suggests that lesseer works would ahv esufficed, so an application probably wouldn't have been approved.

 

Clear as mud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Log in or register to remove this advert

Just saw the TO comments. The double negative cannot be right, all the other indications are that he is saying the exemption would not have been useable.

So, offence. Indicates that an application would not have been approved. Prosecution should follow if any public interest to be served.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, daltontrees said:

Just saw the TO comments. The double negative cannot be right, all the other indications are that he is saying the exemption would not have been useable.

So, offence. Indicates that an application would not have been approved. Prosecution should follow if any public interest to be served.

That’s what I concluded. 
 

The only point I wasn’t clear on - but suspected it not to be the case unlike in building without or other than in accordance with the regs -  you cannot have a retrospective TPO approval whereas you can have a retrospective building approval. 
 

I’ll be exploring it further with a query to the case officer. 
 

Public interest….?

 

A publicly funded QUANGO (NE) engaging an apparently inept contractor to undertake inappropriate work within a National Nature Reserve in contravention of simple TPO restrictions being judged for public interest by a LA that suffers from exceptionally low public confidence….

 

Wouldn’t expect it to progress very far. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  •  

  • Featured Adverts

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

Articles

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.