Gary Prentice

It shouldn't be a case of falling out (in an ideal world), if he has incorrectly interpreted the legislation and believes the trees are protected you're only educating him. Why would anyone be miffed about that? (tongue firmly in cheek). If on the other hand, he knows that he is mis-informing people to his own ends, then I personally wouldn't care less. The law, legislation and regulations apply to us all and if you're working within them no-one should take umbrage. It's concerning that LA officers, some LA officers, appear to be very poorly informed and lack the legal knowledge to actually do the job that they are employed to do. I say that with the caveat that I believe ALL LA officers on arbtalk are very well informed and knowledgeable and I'm not implying otherwise:biggrin:

Unless the TPO is a woodland order, only the trees present at the time the (area) order was made are protected. The TO can tell you what he wants but your defense is solid if you fell younger trees not present at the time the order was made. I would get a copy of the order, a copy of the 2012 regs and ask him to then justify his position:biggrin: Edit. The TO can't actually prevent you doing the work, all he can actually do is to provide evidence in court that you have contravened the TPO. Personally I would email the planning department, specifying the work you intend to do to trees that ARE NOT PROTECTED by the tpo, highlighting why they are not protected and see what response they come up with. They will either admit that they are not protected, ignore your correspondence, bluster that they are protected or serve a new TPO. Might be worth reminding them that an area order is only intended as an emergency measure until such time as they can survey properly and they can serve a new order showing groups and/or individual trees that actually merit protection.

It's not that difficult a concept to grasp, is it? So why can't my LA do it? All this just becomes such an un-necessary waste of time and I don't feel that I (or anyone else) should have to instruct or inform the planning and/or legal departments about the T&CPA. Leaving wok now to walk the dogs and de-stress:001_rolleyes:

I think we can now stick a fork in this thread..... It's done!:thumbup: Am I the only one who gets fed up with the lack of correct interpretation of the law, by the people who are employed to administer it?

Hi Chris, an interesting opinion. I don't really see, legally, why reasons why the order wasn't confirmed should carry any weight or be relevant, it either is or it isn't. Not saying that I don't appreciate that for varying reasons things don't get done as they should. My comments on the LA continuing to temporary TPO are purely hypothetical, but I find our local legal departments interpretation difficult to comprehend and hypothetically they could administer Notices this way - in fact, this is what they are or appear to be doing in this particular situation. The whole situation has been frustrating. The client submitted to the TO - who isn't in planning. I asked planning on what date they received the submission from him, to clarify when the clock started. (Does it start when a council officer receives it or when the planning department actually get it?) The planning officer refused to take calls or answer my emails for a week before serving the order. After that he admitted that six weeks had elapsed on the monday when I originally enquired and that week was used to compile the order which was served on the friday. The client could have legally felled all week, if we'd been able to confirm the dates. I don't disagree with the order at all, if I was the TO I'd want to protect it. I strongly disagree with being stone-walled because they haven't done their job efficiently and effectively and then act in what appears to be a under-hand manner to cover up their failures.

I've done that once or twice myself, but always with a niggling suspicion that there are some very high shock loads involved (much too complicated to even attempt to calculate) and everything could very quickly go big time bad:biggrin: But it's very satisfying when the plan works as intended:thumbup1:

That's my understanding/opinion. I wish Mr Mynors hadn't moved on to pastures new:001_smile:

Sorry Paul, I can't agree (with your bit in bold) When a s211 notice is served, if the LA oppose they can pretty much do nothing other than to serve a TPO. They can ask obviously ask the notifier to amend the notification to the effect that they don't oppose it, but otherwise4 -if they oppose it they must TPO it. If they don't confirm the TPO they haven't then protected the tree, they intended to but then: 1) changed their mind or 2) didn't get their act in order and allowed the order to lapse after six months. Surely it's a ludicrous position to say "we opposed the notification - but only for six months, so you can't do the work you said you wanted to do! - Re-notify!" That approach would lead to a position where a LA could oppose a notification by slapping a 'temporary TPO' on for ever more in response and never ever confirming it, forcing a new 211 notice every six months. My opinion is, the LA have been told of the intention to fell. If they had failed to oppose after six weeks, the notifier could legally do the notified work any time within two years. The LA have temporarily opposed it, but then failed to confirm their opposition by confirming the order ie they now don't oppose it, so the original notification then becomes not opposed and the work can be done? I'm tempted, sorely tempted, to check the dates, and if six months have elapsed - go and stick a 'gob' in the trees, then tell the LA to take me to court if I've done something illegal. I'm sick and tired of trying to deal professionally with people who continually seem unable to get their house in order.... Rant over:biggrin:

I'm clear on all of that, but can the order still be confirmed at a date after six months or does a new order have to be made? I know of orders that weren't confirmed for eight years, then when the error was recognized a sudden confirmation lands on the owners door mat. I think this is/was an abuse, in that interested parties could have changed in the eight years and then have no opportunity to object or make representation. It's hardly within the spirit of the legislation.

From the 2012 Regs: Provisional effect of order 4.—(1) An order shall not take effect (other than provisionally in accordance with paragraph (2)) unless and until confirmed by the authority, and must be confirmed no later than the expiration of the period of six months beginning with the date on which is was made. (2) Until confirmation an order shall take effect provisionally on the date on which it is made until— (a) the expiration of a period of six months beginning with the date on which the order was made; (b) the date on which the order is confirmed; or © the date on which the authority decide not to confirm the order, whichever first occurs. I thought that the authority had to confirm within six months, where previously they could confirm at any time (although the tree wasn't protected after six months and/or until the order was confirmed)? Am I correct that the order has to be confirmed within six months, if it isn't, it can't be confirmed after six months and a new order has to be served. I can't quite grasp the legalese of the the regulations.

I think you've missed my point!

I'm struggling to get my head around a conversation I've just had with a local TO. so I'll put it out to the collective minds for further discussion and opinions. A client submitted to fell two ash trees in a conservation area. The TO thought they merited retention and subsequently served a TPO. I objected (various reasons but not really pertinent to the discussion), as did the owner. We assumed that in due course we would be notified of a planning meeting. Time has passed, I've been checking online but the item hasn't come up on any PM agendas. In December, I emailed the Planning Department to ask what their procedure was to consider objections/representations. (Surely these are considered by a third party and the TPO won't be confirmed under executive powers of the TO & PO - regardless of objections:confused1:) I'm still waiting on an answer to that:thumbdown: Speaking to the head TO today I asked him what the procedure is. He's unsure but had been speaking to the head of legal recently, about a TPO that hadn't been confirmed and that had had objections I.E. Mine! The legal eagle told him that it didn't matter, if the owner wanted to fell they would have to submit another Section 211 Notice because the tree was still protected by the conservation area:confused1: The original notice caused the tree to be protected (temporarily) so is no longer valid! and the process would have to start again:lol: I don't know whether to laugh or hold my head in my hands and cry:confused1:

Can I claim viewing the 'Favourite weathergirls' thread as CPD?

And none of the younger trees are conditioned replants from consented fellings, that have been then TPO'd Nothing's ever straight forward....

Only if you then add creosote though!

Maybe not 'odd', but there is no record of any emails actually sent, from my 'Sent' box. I started getting phone calls within probably ten minutes and asked people to forward 'my message' - none of which came (well, they actually went straight to the bin!

I think so:confused1: but I do forget passwords and have to renew them, so might have re-used it doh Think I need to start to look at the whole thing and start from scratch on all my online stuff.

I only had a change in settings, any email that came to me went straight to the bin. Maybe an attempt to prevent the alarm being raised about the unauthorized access.

Someone got into my email account yesterday morning, from both Singapore and Nigeria, and emailed just about everyone I have ever corresponded with. The attachment appeared dodgy to most peoples protection and also appears difficult or impossible to open, so I hope no harm has been done. How do I prevent it? My password was strong (apparently not strong enough) with 14 characters and numbers. We run Bullguard on the laptops and PCs, but I don't think we have any protection on the iphones. The email system is Google, using [email protected] From my own point of view, responding to countless emails and phone calls, it's a nightmare, so I'd like to beef things up.

So basically, you do the job, get paid 'if and when' the timber is collected but never know the weight for which you'll be able to invoice for - with any certainty. Stacking shelves at Tesco's actually looks like a viable change of career!

Think the standard JCT contract is thirty days. We get huge contracts to read, sign and return - normally long after the works completed, but try getting some companies to adhere to the contract that they require you to!

Could have been worse, he could have stayed!

0 out of 10 for their hinges though.

Careful, there's still four days left

Best; seeing my twin sister for Christmas Worst; shingles:thumbdown: