What constitutes a public place

[daltontrees]

Rules? Ha, that's the wrong way to look at the game.

 

Rule 1 - rules are for the guidance of wise men and for the adherence of fools

Rule 2 - speak softly and carry a big stick

Rule 3 - never ask a question that you don't know the answer to

[Ian G 2]

Rules? Ha, that's the wrong way to look at the game.

 

Rule 1 - rules are for the guidance of wise men and for the adherence of fools

Rule 2 - speak softly and carry a big stick

Rule 3 - never ask a question that you don't know the answer to

 

nice

love these threads gets grey matter ticking and some times just happen to be relevant but always a good read thumbup1:

[Gary Prentice]

Yes that is so. Planning Inspector is the great overlord and we all agree to be subject to his (or her's) rule. I would just like to know the rules of the game before I start playing.

 

But then the goalposts couldn't be moved:001_tt2:

[daltontrees]

An extreme appeal! Against the making of a TPO, not the refusal of an application. therefore cold only be dealt with by the court and not an Inspector.

 

Also I noted at para 42. In Stirk v Bridgnorth (1997) 73 P&CR 439 at 444 Thorpe LJ said “where a council is both proposer and judge, the obligation to deal thoroughly, conscientiously, and fairly with any objection is enhanced”.

[daltontrees]

Not an appeal but a challenge. Different things alltogether.

 

I appreciate that, it's just that the original posting was about an appeal. In an appeal the rights or wrongs of the original TPO are not open to inspection.

[oslac]

The rights or wrongs of the TPO was not part of my thinking. I accept the TPO exists and has been confirmed.

 

The issue was in relation to an appeal to PINS in respect of removing the TPO tree. Although the Inspector passed other comments about the tree and why he would refuse the appeal, it is his comments in relation to visibility which made me sit up.

 

I would have been more content if no comment about visibility was made when deciding the appeal but they were made and as such, I am concerned as to where this might go.

 

The inspector, in future could decide that a tree in a private garden overlooked by one house has public visibility and that would shift the goal posts somewhat. (yes I liked the previous goal post comment and I agree).

 

You may think that this is all ok as the Inspector is protecting trees but there is another side to the coin and the application to remove trees is a legitimate occupation and I would not like to feel that I have been hijacked by someones interpretation. Perhaps if the Inspector set out how and why he came to his decision, I could understand where he is coming from and learn from it for next time.

[daltontrees]

Hi Oslac

 

This sugests that visibility, or lack of it, was raised as a reason for refusal, or as a reason for the works. If this is the case then the Inspector is quite right to address the visibility issue.

 

Some things are subjective and we will all have a different opinion. It's not about fixed in stone criteria. You may view this as goal post moving when you get differing opinions from different people. The Inspector has given their opinion, but they will I am sure, have been considering the trees wider amenity, which of course is the word the primary legislation uses, of which visibility is but one element. Even the guidance, and it is just that, guidance, when defining amenity doesn't say the tree shall be visible from a public place, but normally visible from a public place, and goes on to give some other examples of amenity, but these are not the only ones.

 

A link to the LPA's website showing the TPO application/decision, and a copy of the Inspectors decision would help inform the discussion.

 

Ed

 

I agree, with a few subjective variations. OP needs to appreciate that guidance is guidance but the primary legislation says 'in the interests of the amenity of the area', and that's the law. None of these words are defined in the Act, and it certainly doesn't say anything about public areas.

 

Which all raises some vaguely philosophical point about whether government shold use powers to control the use of one man's land for the benefit of private individuals. That would generally be an abuse of the convention on human rights, uness there is societal interest. It's a fine line.

 

It's not really like goalposts. More like shot putting, as long as you don't step over the line and as long as you get within the splay, the best shot wins.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

When considering whether a TPO tree has amenity value, is it necessary for the tree to be seen from a public place . . . and if so, what constitutes a public place.

Thanks

 

How did this one pan out Oslac?

 

I remembered the thread and had cause to look it up because (I think) I'm coming at the problem from the other direction at the moment:

 

LA won't TPO, apparently based on a perception of lack of public visibility - i.e. not from a road / footpath even though the tree(s) are highly visible from a large number of private and rented holiday homes and a right of access pedestrian path.

 

It's been a useful re-read of the discussion thread, a look at the planning practice guidance and a leaf through Mynors. Interesting that Mynors references s.40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 too (22.2.7 top of p572)