Conservation area tree works

[hamdogg]

I still think 6 week is too long! But there probably thinly staffed!!

[Gary Prentice]

I still think 6 week is too long! But there probably thinly staffed!!

 

Nothing to do with the LA's staffing levels, it's a statutory period from the TCPA

[daltontrees]

Got a job coming up in a conservation area 3 trees to be dismantled and a number pruned the house holder has assured me they have give the council notice, and have been given permission to go a head with the works, I have checked on council website and I'm unable to find detail, and as yet unable to get hold of tree officer. If I get the home owner to sign a contract to the effect that he has relevant permission for the works does this cover me from any come back if he is telling porky's.

 

Whatever others are telling you, this 'contract' would cover you. It's the Council's job to police these things, not you. If you make sure your contract says that there is a CA, you have made customer aware of it and the penalties for contravention and the requirements for notification, and that the customer has undertaken to make sure that the LPA has no objections, then you are covered.

[john k]

Is there any case law to support this? It's not how the law normally works.

[daltontrees]

Is there any case law to support this? It's not how the law normally works.

 

It's the law of contract. As long as the condition is not 'unfair' (Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977), it seems clear enough that parties can agree between themselves who tkaes repsonsibility for doing (and not doing) what.

 

Mynors in the 2002 edition refers specifically to Regina [/i]v Bournemouth Justices ex parte Bournemouth Corporation for causing or permitting an offence to be just as culpable as doing the work. He goes on to surmise that the Accessories and Abettors Act could be used to direct the true blame back to the landowner. I'm afraid my edition is somewhat out of date, but then so is the government's legislation website and my attempt to see whether the government has specifically changed the law to include 'causing or permitting' is inconclusive. When the law was substantially revised by teh 2008 Planning Act, the opportunity was not taken. That would have put the matter beyond any doubt and removed the need to prove that the principle applies to TPO contraventions, and by extension to CA contraventions. In the meantime it seems to stand on case law. It seems to me a sound and sensible position.

 

All the aforegoing supposes there is a contravention without a contract. If so, the tree contractor may be partly cuplable, with some possibility of arguing that he was merely doing and tha the true criminal act was the causing him to do. But with a contract all that changes. The tree owner cannot say that he did not know about the CA, he cannot say he was unaware tha the penalties were harsh and that he would be to blame, and he cannot say that he thiught the contractor had it covered. He would therefore clearly be 'causing'. Furthermore the contractor could demonstrate that he had no further duty to warn and had no duty at all to check as to the existence of immunity through the s211 notice process.

 

I have had clients who would have been insulted if I had insisted on seeing notification, and who not only were willing to see such a clause in my terms of appointment but would have been worried if I hadn't been thorough enough to make sure there was one. People are grown-up enough to enter into plain contracts.Courts are slow to intervene in plain contracts as long as the cotract terms are not unfair. When they do have to intervene, they do so with public benefit in mind. What court would hold a contractor to blame for contravening a CA where such a contract existed and where the tree owner was so very very obviously and inexcusably to blame, otherwise known as 'at it'? None.

 

This is how the law normally works. Thank goodness. But I'll stand corrected if there's some changes to the Planning Acts that I have missed perhaps buried in a Schedule to the 'Obscure and Cunningly Concealed Changes to the Planning Acts' Act 2015 that Jobe himself wouldn't have the patience to track down.

 

Coffee break over, back to work...

[hamdogg]

Nothing to do with the LA's staffing levels, it's a statutory period from the TCPA

 

 

Oh well fair enough,

[skyhuck]

Nothing to do with the LA's staffing levels, it's a statutory period from the TCPA

 

While this is true, there is no requirement for it to take 6 weeks. One of my local councils often deal with notification within 2 weeks and often sooner. Another always leave it until the 11th hour or simply make no reply other than the initial acknowledgement. On one occasion the TPO was served by recorded delivery on the very last day of the 6 weeks.

[Gary Prentice]

While this is true, there is no requirement for it to take 6 weeks. One of my local councils often deal with notification within 2 weeks and often sooner. Another always leave it until the 11th hour or simply make no reply other than the initial acknowledgement. On one occasion the TPO was served by recorded delivery on the very last day of the 6 weeks.

 

Sorry Huck, I should have elaborated on my answer. You are correct, but it was 3.30am when I posted.

 

I've had a tpo served three days after the 6 weeks, 2 days too late.

[skyhuck]

Sorry Huck, I should have elaborated on my answer. You are correct, but it was 3.30am when I posted.

 

I've had a tpo served three days after the 6 weeks, 2 days too late.

 

I trust the trees had already hit the deck!!

[Gary Prentice]

Put it this way, TPOs are now served promptly.