Parish council agree to fell tree - how to stop?

[treequip]

Verging on the pedantic there! Surely "allow the notified works to proceed" is consenting to them!

 

The point is that some LA's try to give the general public the impression that they have powers they simply don't have.

 

I know one that's particularly fond of doing it

[treequip]

Oh good, a CA application/consent/permission debate:lol:

 

Nothing to debate, just a statement of fact

[Paul Barton]

The point is that some LA's try to give the general public the impression that they have powers they simply don't have.

 

 

 

I know one that's particularly fond of doing it

 

 

Agreed. 👍

[Gary Prentice]

Rattling your cages, fella's:biggrin:

 

I sometimes find that when a LA gives an impression of more authority than they have, that it is in the belief that they legally do have that authority. Ignorance is bliss.

[daltontrees]

The point is that some LA's try to give the general public the impression that they have powers they simply don't have.

 

I know one that's particularly fond of doing it

 

I thought the wording was perfect ('allow the notified works to proceed'). As GP hints at, it is tiresome to see the misunderstanding about 'consent' being needed in CAs being perpetuated and having to be clarified again and again and again on Arbtalk.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Rattling your cages, fella's:biggrin:

 

 

 

I sometimes find that when a LA gives an impression of more authority than they have, that it is in the belief that they legally do have that authority. Ignorance is bliss.

 

 

A little bit off tack, but an example of such assumed / implied "authority" which might not actually exist could be the LA requiring a TPO application from a person wishing to cut back their neighbour's TPO'd tree as far as the boundary. I've found that in such circumstances the (as yet informal advice) from LA is that the non tree owner should apply via TPO route. It seems illogical since it's the abatement of nuisance that the person wishing to cut back is undertaking and as such, they need neither the tree owner nor the LA approval / consent to do. (Question rather than statement!)

 

I only put the question in continuation of Gary's / Treequip's observations on "assumed" authority by LA, maybe if it takes off I'll move it over to a new thread if necessary?

[daltontrees]

A little bit off tack, but an example of such assumed / implied "authority" which might not actually exist could be the LA requiring a TPO application from a person wishing to cut back their neighbour's TPO'd tree as far as the boundary. I've found that in such circumstances the (as yet informal advice) from LA is that the non tree owner should apply via TPO route. It seems illogical since it's the abatement of nuisance that the person wishing to cut back is undertaking and as such, they need neither the tree owner nor the LA approval / consent to do. (Question rather than statement!)

 

I only put the question in continuation of Gary's / Treequip's observations on "assumed" authority by LA, maybe if it takes off I'll move it over to a new thread if necessary?

 

This has been debated. The encroachment needs to be substantial to the point of being actionable at-law before the exemption applies, and the exemption does not allow cutting back to the boundary, just enough cutting back as is necessary to remove the (actionable) nuisance.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

This has been debated. The encroachment needs to be substantial to the point of being actionable at-law before the exemption applies, and the exemption does not allow cutting back to the boundary, just enough cutting back as is necessary to remove the (actionable) nuisance.

 

 

Ah, bugger! Wouldn't want to revisit that which has gone before! I'll have a trawl later.

[Gary Prentice]

This has been debated. The encroachment needs to be substantial to the point of being actionable at-law before the exemption applies, and the exemption does not allow cutting back to the boundary, just enough cutting back as is necessary to remove the (actionable) nuisance.

 

Beat me to it - but my excuse is that I'm meant to be working:sneaky2:

[Paul Barton]

I thought the wording was perfect ('allow the notified works to proceed'). As GP hints at, it is tiresome to see the misunderstanding about 'consent' being needed in CAs being perpetuated and having to be clarified again and again and again on Arbtalk.

 

 

I know what you mean, BUT not everyone reads all the relevant threads and new members won't have seen them.

 

Besides, it's often a case of semantics rather than not actually knowing the difference between the two processes.