Serving TPO's/Notifying agents

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

 

So am I correct that 'shall' means that the LA must serve the agent too?

 

QUOTE]

 

I don't know the absolute interpretation of the word 'shall' in this context. However, if it doesn't quite mean MUST it surely sets out best practice which the LPA would reasonably be expected to follow anyway...would it not?

 

Hence I would interpret, to all intents and purposes, as.....PROBABLY (expect your copy in the post soon!)

 

Cheers..

Paul

[Gary Prentice]

 

So am I correct that 'shall' means that the LA must serve the agent too?

 

QUOTE]

 

I don't know the absolute interpretation of the word 'shall' in this context. However, if it doesn't quite mean MUST it surely sets out best practice which the LPA would reasonably be expected to follow anyway...would it not?

 

Hence I would interpret, to all intents and purposes, as.....PROBABLY (expect your copy in the post soon!)

 

Cheers..

Paul

 

Reading some legal dictionaries in the early hours, after posting, I think 'shall' makes it an obligation, 'you will serve the person who submitted'. The agent has become an interested party - so it's always been daft that they're not informed IMO.

 

It's a bit poor that the Planning Practice Guidance uses 'should' - which has a lesser order of instruction, (you should do but don't have to) when it appears from the regulations that it's a requirement and not voluntary.

 

I'll start ruffling feathers in my future s.221 notices, reminding planning departments of the requirement to serve me too and see what reaction I get. Orders on everything probably.

[Gary Prentice]

I stand corrected.

 

Cant say I ever come across this to be honest. I do a lot of pre-app meetings to filter out unsuitable apps and I don't TPO trees that I think we would lose on appeal. I know some LPAs do!!!

 

Everydays a schoolday, as they say.

 

If my understanding of the differences between should and shall are correct (David drummed that into us) it's easy to see that the guidance, which i imagine is the first and probably reference source anyone looks at, has continued the practice.

 

We've a large, publicly visible sycamore to fell tomorrow in a CA. It's caused a load of damage to the neighbours garage with cracks every where. It's really a no brainer, but I haven't dealt with this authority before so they could possibly serve it (they'd never confirm it).I don't want to travel there tomorrow and the postman arrive with the order at 9am.

 

I'll still end up ringing the planning department to check this afternoon to cover all bases.

[Chris at eden]

Everydays a schoolday, as they say.

 

If my understanding of the differences between should and shall are correct (David drummed that into us) it's easy to see that the guidance, which i imagine is the first and probably reference source anyone looks at, has continued the practice.

 

We've a large, publicly visible sycamore to fell tomorrow in a CA. It's caused a load of damage to the neighbours garage with cracks every where. It's really a no brainer, but I haven't dealt with this authority before so they could possibly serve it (they'd never confirm it).I don't want to travel there tomorrow and the postman arrive with the order at 9am.

 

I'll still end up ringing the planning department to check this afternoon to cover all bases.

 

 

Yes I remember the shall / should debate well. I would think that the word shall is used in the regs because its not an option, they are regs that must be followed.

 

If you remember what Dave used to say about 3998 using the word should, i.e. its recommendations and so not binding so has to use the word should. I suppose you could apply the same logic to the planning policy guidance. Not really joined up thinking though as you would think they would match!!!

[Gary Prentice]

Nail and head, Chris.

 

Interestingly, I spoke to Oldham planning today. They have no actual policy of informing the agent- but the only officer who deals with trees sends the TPO to the agent because he personally classes them as an interested party.

 

Bolton doesn't have any policy, that the fellow I spoke to was aware of.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Nail and head, Chris.

 

Interestingly, I spoke to Oldham planning today. They have no actual policy of informing the agent- but the only officer who deals with trees sends the TPO to the agent because he personally classes them as an interested party.

 

Bolton doesn't have any policy, that the fellow I spoke to was aware of.

 

Hi Gary,

 

Why would they need a 'policy' per se for making and serving TPOs when there's such extensive guidance available which is backed up by the regulations...or do you mean a policy in the sense of their normal practices?

 

No need to reply particularly as this is just a thought out loud really.

 

Cheers..

Paul

[Gary Prentice]

Hi Gary,

 

Why would they need a 'policy' per se for making and serving TPOs when there's such extensive guidance available which is backed up by the regulations...or do you mean a policy in the sense of their normal practices?

 

No need to reply particularly as this is just a thought out loud really.

 

Cheers..

Paul

 

As Chris said, the guidance being guidance doesn't make it clear that notifying the person who submitted the S.211 is mandatory in the regulations. How many people actually read, or want to read, the statutory instruments if they can avoid it. The way the guidance is written can lead to lack of understanding because it doesn't or can't define what must be done and what should be done. If planning departments use the guidance it appears that they should but don't have too. Chris writes things so much clearer than me.

 

Again policy would have been clearer if I had said normal practice.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

As Chris said, the guidance being guidance doesn't make it clear that notifying the person who submitted the S.211 is mandatory in the regulations. How many people actually read, or want to read, the statutory instruments if they can avoid it. The way the guidance is written can lead to lack of understanding because it doesn't or can't define what must be done and what should be done. If planning departments use the guidance it appears that they should but don't have too. Chris writes things so much clearer than me.

 

Again policy would have been clearer if I had said normal practice.

 

Acknowledged, "fair comment."

 

You right things quite clearly I think, it's my reading that let's it down

 

Cheers Gary,

Paul