Trade restriction?

[Rupe]

Usually for conservsation area work it stipulates that the work is to be carried out to BS whatever it is, doesn't matter who does it.

 

TPO's are different and not relevant to the original question.

[geoff]

Fair one , Geoff. I must have frozen my brains off as well as other parts of my anatomy on Hadleigh Downs today

 

Frail excuse but I'll fall for it!

[treequip]

 

TPO's are different and not relevant to the original question.

 

Rupe,

 

How are TPO's different?

 

Andy

[Rupe]

Cos they are Specific to individual trees whereas conservation area is a blanket covering......

 

Maybe once permision is granted there is no difference but the original question was about conservation areas.

[Amelanchier]

Rupe,

 

How are TPO's different?

 

Andy

 

Because the LPA cannot attach any conditions to "consent" within conservation areas (their only option is to serve a TPO) - they can with a TPO decision.

 

As you say though, those conditions must meet the tests applied to planning conditions, that is they must be;

 

1. necessary;
   
2. relevant to planning;
   
3. relevant to the development [treework] to be permitted;
   
4. enforceable;
   
5. precise; and
   
6. reasonable in all other respects.
   

 

Specifying an approved contractor might violate the neccessity (other contractors can meet the standard) and the reasonableness tests. Remember though, it might seem unfair but until it gets appealed, we can't say whether its "legal"! As far as I know though, no-one has appealed a TPO condition with regard to approved contractors - it would be a nice precedent to have either way.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Amelanchier

[treequip]

As you say attaching an approved contractor condition (or any other condition) to a 211is a complete non starter.

 

Attaching one to a TPO consent constitutes a restrictive practice. There is no legal basis for it and it is un enforceable.

 

A precedent would be nice but I for one doubt it would get to an appeal. If I encountered a planning consent with such a condition I would simply ignore the condition.

 

Andy

[Amelanchier]

If I encountered a planning consent with such a condition I would simply ignore the condition.

 

I'm inclined to agree with you. As you say - unenforcable. Might not stop a misguided LPA attempting to do so though! Stranger things have happened.

[Mesterh]

It's all a bit of a sad state of affairs saying an LA approved contractor should carry out the work.

 

Last time I was on an LA approved list all I had to do was send in a copy of my PL insurance, how poor is that!

[PeteB]

What do you think the LA think they are going to achieve by having this stance of "only so and so can do this work"?

 

The question of liabilty with public funds and no recourse is screaming at me here!

[Amelanchier]

Well aside from contractors, what about the homeowner who wants to do his own work? While it may not always be desirable, its certainly perfectly reasonable.