Advice Please.

[Gary Prentice]

A. I don't think there is a statutory answer to this. If the Act calls for written notification (s.211) to the LPA, it's not to the Plannign Dept. it's to the Council. Let its mail dept. redicrect it to the right dept. I always put mine in to the Council's registered address (HQ) unless the Council has published (usually on its website) where notifications are to be sent.

 

If, however, the Council takes it a little further and individual TOs state that they accept emails directly to the TO, then the Council cannot subsequently say that a notification was late or wrongly submitted.

 

The picture is a little blurry recently because of the use of emails. There is statute providing for what constitutes 'writing' and the like and whether emails count. But if an email is accepted, that's the end of it. Always ask for an acknowledgement. In my case I follow emails up with a letter.

I send to planning Admin and the individual PO who deals with all the tree work apps & submissions. And the clock starts with the auto reply:biggrin:

The clock can always be reset if the app/notice is not valid - I've only ever had one.

 

B. It doesn't state this anywhere, it doesn't have to. The legislation ust requires sufficient info to identify the tree(s). Well there's little room for doubt in this instance & they could identify clearly enough to serve the order

 

C. No. A safe bet is to assume a letter will take say 2 working days to get to the Council, and its response will take the same to come back. So if you allow 6 weeks and 2 working days and get no written response, you are immune from prosecution if you do the notified tree work. Even, dare i say it, if the Council subsequently TPOs the trees.

 

I've used the window of opportunity before and the officer bucked his ideas up and got his house in order for a while, but now things are back to the usual status quo. I know last time it went on to the legal department but I didn't hear anything else. I'd even given a few days grace to allow for two bank holidays, so they couldn't say I was unfair.

 

My opinion now is if they can't serve an order within six weeks, that's their problem.

[daltontrees]

More than opinion, that is the position in law. The history of analogous situations is that 6 weeks means 6 weeks and tim is 'of the essence'. A late TPO might be valid, but so would a notification that got no response within 6 weeks.

 

Daughter thinks these emoticons are appropriate here.:fight:

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Hi Gary, this little chip only really relates to (A) and I held off for a while because I thought there might have been a bit of background that would bubble up in the discussions. I think the piece I was wondering about has come out in the previous discussions and that is, if I'm reading it correctly, that the tree owner submitted the notice rather than you? So you can't undo what is already done, and I think you'll tire of trying to "fix" what could well be a valid frustration as you describe it. I know exactly what you mean!

 

I try and avoid the situation arising in the first place by making submissions via the Planning Portal. You get a validated submission confirmation straight away and it's up to "the system" to process the application within the set timeframes.

 

It doesn't always result in a decision within the allocated timeframe, but there can be no debate or confusion over what the timeframe is!

 

No help if you're trying to resolve an existing situation but a sound method of avoiding getting your own submissions in a pickle.

[Jon Heuch]

A) For the purpose of submissions to the LPA, does a submission have to go to the actual planning department or would an email submission to the Tree Officer ( who is employed in a separate department) count as the submission date?

 

B) I've read elsewhere that for the purpose of a S.211 notice, there is no legal requirement to provide a site plan. Where does it state this?

 

C) Is there a legal requirement for the LPA to issue a validation letter after a S211 notice is submitted or any letter giving the expiration date of the six week period?

 

A) In simple terms the Council is the Council....any part of it . But you have to accept that a large organisation is likely to take time in moving something around and people go on holiday. That's why the planning portal is so good....there is no room to argue on dates. Remember s211 is phrased as to identify a defence and so you have to prove your defence. You have to show you have served notice on the Local Planning Authority and 6 weeks have passed since you did so.....so leaving a general letter to the Council at the front desk is not quite good enough. It should be addressed to the Council as the Local Planning Authority and if the tree officer is not in the Planning Section it could be argued that you haven't given the LPA notice.

 

B) As others have stated s211 (3)(a)."..sufficient particulars to identify the tree" are required....not necessarily a plan.

 

C) In practice no and yes, I have been in the situation thinking the clock is ticking and the Council has not registered a notification so not been in touch. If you don't hear from them it is worthwhile checking the Council website (most seem to lodge them as planning applications but I expect a few don't) and remind them if it is not appearing.

[daltontrees]

The LPA can make a TPO at anytime, even after the six week notice period expires. If that is the case then the TPO takes precedence. Any works to the trees without the requisite TPO consent would be an offence. There is NO exception allowing works to TPO'd trees arising from the TPO being made after the six week notice period expires.

 

Ed

 

I suppose that has to be strictly correct, but it's a poor situation that would allow a notifier to wait 6 weeks then believe he had the right to remove a tree, and then have that right removed by the making of 'late' a TPO by a Council that didn'tt get its act together quickly enough. Put another way, the TPO has to be based on expediency including a real or pereived threat that the tree's amenity may be lost, but the Councils (inactions) suggest no such urgency. Mynors in the 1st edition refers to R. v North Hertfordshire District Council ex parte Hyde confirms that the tree is unprotected in the intervening period.

 

If it were my tree and I had lined up a squad of guys to remove trees after the 6 weeks was up and then got a TPO I'd be fizzing. There may be a basis for compensation.

 

Oh, and as usual don't rely on any of this stuff for Scotland.

 

And if there's a lesson for the determined notifier, get the notification to stick with a reliably recorded dte a tthe Council's correct address and have the saws idling just before midnight 6 weeks later. it's a sad state of affairs that encourages this sort of attitude but 6 weeks should be long enough for any Council to make a TPO.

Edited June 13, 2016 by daltontrees