kevinjohnsonmbe
Veteran Member-
Posts
12,034 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
73
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Classifieds
Tip Site Directory
Blogs
Articles
News
Arborist Reviews
Arbtalk Knot Guide
Gallery
Store
Calendar
Freelancers directory
Everything posted by kevinjohnsonmbe
-
Hitting a parked vehicle and not leaving details
kevinjohnsonmbe replied to kevinjohnsonmbe's topic in Business Management
TV cameras in attendance! Not for me (not yet at least!) This case is also being heard at 10:00. Hopefully, I'll get a chance to shake his hand.... http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/police-called-shots-fired-near-north-cornwall-hunt-609380 -
Hitting a parked vehicle and not leaving details
kevinjohnsonmbe replied to kevinjohnsonmbe's topic in Business Management
Gary, your wisdom and insight do you credit! (it's better to be inside the tent pi55ing out, rather than outside the tent pi55ing in!!) I'm flattered! Eggs, Mmmmmm.... Your grasp of reality is, as ever, a little hash but on the money! -
Hitting a parked vehicle and not leaving details
kevinjohnsonmbe replied to kevinjohnsonmbe's topic in Business Management
cheers Mr E! If all all goes quiet, I'm banged up in Bodmin Gaol for abusing the beak! Came pretty close to contempt of Court at the last HMRC hearing! -
Hitting a parked vehicle and not leaving details
kevinjohnsonmbe replied to kevinjohnsonmbe's topic in Business Management
16 August 2017, 10:00 Bodmin County Court. 1 more whiskey (yes - Irish) then off to bed pondering on the potential outcome of tomorrow's proceedings..... -
The Lefties' book of protest chants!
-
Everyone needs to embrace behavioural change which delivers more efficient working practice - The Planning Portal (in this instance) is a great example. Public sector departments are riddled with inefficiency, ineptitude, idleness and lack of imagination - the spotlight is on them and the money tap is off, for that we can THANK "the Tories" and we should live in dread of the prospect of Labour promising to write cheques our bank balances can't cash.
-
Is woodchip and tree surgery arisings a waste?
kevinjohnsonmbe replied to justinkingwell's topic in Trees and the Law
Since EA website went "dot Gov" it's been dreadful! from memory, any "treated" timber - fence posts, panels, painted, treated, tantalised, is "waste" and subject to carriers licence at higher tier. "Green" arisings direct from the tree, is lower tier. Is a tree "waste" if it's being moved from A to B for processing into logs? No - if it were then all timber lorries would be carrying waste rather than saw logs. I apply the same logic to chip. If it's going for conversion to compost or top dressing, it's not waste it's 'product.' Haven't had a run in with EA whilst on the road yet, but I'll be ready if it ever does happen. There may may also be a matter of scale too. Doesn't trouble me but may be important in larger scale ops. -
There's SO much (some outrageously funny, some head-bangingly frustrating, some heart-stoppingly dull, some adrenalin pumping - let's take it outside angry, some are you 'king kidding me incredible) to tell you about! And that's after 2 meetings!!!
-
You're spot on Gary! for this one, it has no impact / stress directly for me. Just a mild frustration that "local" governance seems irrelevant and regional governance seems incapable / unwilling. The most frustrating part has been the attempts, by those that should know better, and are paid / empowered to do so, to attempt to flannel & waffle their way to the course of least resistance - either with the knowledge that they aren't fulfilling their civic and professional duty with diligence, or that there is a deficiency of appropriate knowledge. Im a reasonable guy (no, honest, I am!) if someone had said, "not sure, leave it with me" I'd have been like, "yeah, no worries dude!'
-
Level of detail: Foundation within an RPA
kevinjohnsonmbe replied to Gary Prentice's topic in Trees and the Law
Was a great post that! Meant to say that earlier!! -
I did, quickly and roughly this morning, in my own time and at my own expense / initiative.... Don't tell me, I made an error? I don't mind too much if I did, the bottom line is, it should have been done properly and it hasn't been and nobody seems to care... Making waves Gary, or having a reasonable expectation that those in authority should be expected to be sufficiently knowledgable, professional and diligent to exercise said authority appropriately? They work for us.... "...They have long memories..." (or to put it in management speak - corporate knowledge, because they are in the job for so long. After all, how would such ineptitude be tolerated anywhere else?) And, I'm a black belt in long memories Gary... This one is going on the record! If / when those trees fall over in 10 years time, I'll just pop up out of the woodwork and remind everybody of this little balls up!! I've got an old man's 9'10" long board, wish there was more time in the waves though!!
-
Easy enough for us to see that Tom, I wonder if they will agree? I'm at a (LA sponsored) planning CPD event next week, it would be too much to hope for that this case officer will be in attendance.... Wouldn't it?
-
Feel your pain!
-
Just to clarify, it's not a job. It's a parish council / community issue.
-
I didn't comment personally Gazzer, I highlighted the deficiencies in the application form to the PC who agreed to change from 'support' to "support subject to TO consultation on site / application.' There's a classic line from Trainspotting.... to misquote - "For all the good that did I'd just as well stuck it...." (you know the rest!) Raised the issue as an enforcement query (I know that's not ideal, but it seemed the least bad way of raising it.) Once again.... For all the good that did I might as well.... On 3 Aug 2017, at 11:36, Planning Enforcement <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Mr Johnson Thank you for your enquiry to Planning Enforcement. As you have advised the trees are not referred to within the decision notice and therefore there are no conditions which are being breached by carrying out works which affect the trees. I have checked and there are no Tree Preservation Orders on the property and it is also not in a Conservation Area therefore we wouldn’t seek any consent for works to be carried out to trees on this property. Therefore we would not seek to investigate this matter as no breach of planning has occurred. Kind regards X Senior Development Support Officer Planning and Sustainable Development Cornwall Council Dear X, Thank you for the email and telephone conversation earlier. To summarise the points regarding trees, please see extract of email exchange Johnson / Stevens (Planning Case Officer) 09:49 3 Aug 17: (earlier post) ..... Also attached the map extract of the site and surrounds previously forwarded to the PO. Separate to the matter of the trees, the DN states in Condition 4 that no work should commence until after written approval has been received from the authority in response to the submission of detailed plans. As I think you confirmed, there are currently no additional details registered with the authority as submitted by the applicant and work HAS commenced. Unless I’m mis-reading the DN, this would appear to present a potential breach. You may have sensed a degree of frustration during our telephone conversation. This is entirely attributable to the difficulty I have experienced in attempting to highlight this issue, starting with the input to Parish council consultee comments (which appear to have been disregarded) and culminating in the number of perceived attempted ‘brush offs’ now that the issue is ‘live.’ Both yourself and the case officer have verbally stated that where not in a CA or subject to TPO protection, trees in development sites are not a material consideration in the granting of consent - I beg to differ, would highlight s197 of the Town & Country Planning Act which states otherwise and request a copy of Cornwall council’s policy to support the statements made. You mentioned forwarding the details as a complaint and I appreciate if you would - but I’m also mindful that the turn-around-time for receipt, investigation and deliberation on such matters will reach it’s natural conclusion a considerable time after any potential damage to the trees has been inflicted and the longer term consequences have become irrecoverable. It’s of particular note that the TPO’d trees just off site are in the stewardship of Cornwall council and I was very disappointed in your initial verbal response that “…since they were not on site, they wouldn’t be affected…” Please note within the attached map the Root Protection Areas (as defined in British Standard 5837:2012) applicable to the trees in question. This submission is as a private individual but is copied to the Parish council and the Rector St Clarus for info. Best regards, Kevin PS (for Arbtalk Massive) in case anyone is wondering, no, I have never been in the Liberal Club!
-
I probably didn't express that as intended! Agree all bats are protected (unlike trees), but what I meant was, sometimes over restrictive legislation can have a negative rather than a positive effect e.g.: Aversion to allowing / maintaining / sustaining bats roosts - and trees with potential for protection because of the potential hassle involved downstream. I wasn't disagreeing with you, just presenting (not very well perhaps) a parallel comparison.
-
And similar logic could be applied to bat regs...
-
Ed, it was the PO that thought trees were not a consideration! Desperate times!! Email just sent.... Thank you for the phone call yesterday. It came as quite a surprise to hear that you would not consider trees in relation to planning applications unless there are Conservation Area (CA) or Tree Preservation Order (TPO) considerations. This would appear to be contrary to the recommendations in British Standard 5837:2012 Introduction which states: “...Existing trees are an important factor on construction sites, whether on or near the working areas, and trees are a material consideration in the UK planning system (see Annex B)…” And Annex B which states: “...Under the UK planning system, local authorities have a statutory duty to consider the protection and planting of trees when granting planning permission for proposed development. The potential effect of development on trees, whether statutorily protected (e.g. by a tree preservation order or by their inclusion within a conservation area) or not, is a material consideration that is taken into account in dealing with planning applications …” I’ve attached a (not to exact scale) map extract which highlights the existing TPO’d trees within St Clarus churchyard - this is a closed cemetery and falls under the stewardship of Cornwall council. There is a prior history of Meripilus giganteus leading to catastrophic wind throw failure of mature Beech in the cemetery. Root wounding of mature Beech is a recognised means by which this fungal pathogen can become established. There are notable high value human, property and highway target areas within failure range of these trees. Failure to apply adequate planning controls for the protection of trees which may later be attributed to failure could have significant liability considerations and also could give rise to questionable stewardship of TPO’d trees by the Authority. Alongside this, there remains the issue of the existing trees within the development site which are in the immediate vicinity of the current excavations. I have submitted a Planning Enforcement query as this seemed the 'least bad’ way of attempting to highlight the scenario although it is noted that, since the development is progressing iaw the DN, it may not actually constitute a breech? Appreciate this may be a peculiar situation and I’m keen to learn from it so as to apply gained knowledge in the future.
-
Difficult to decide which is more tragic.... The muppets commenting or the Guardian for running such a non-story...?
-
(1) Accurate.... (2) Funny.... (3) Not derogatory..... (see 1) Nah, can't be racist!
-
Source doc's and details here: https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/environment-and-planning/planning/online-planning-register/ search under planning app numbers: PA17/04381 and PA17/04749
-
Here's the scenario: A domestic applicant submits a planning application for internal changes to a listed building and the new build of a double garage in the existing garden. The application form (section 7 Trees & Hedges) states there are no trees within or adjacent to the development site. The application is considered by the Parish council as an advisory consultee and, whilst not objecting to the development in principle, it is noted that the application form is incorrect in that there ARE trees within the development site and TPO'd trees in reasonably close proximity (RPA effected) adjacent in the nearby cemetery. The Parish council support the development in principle subject to TO's consideration of the trees in the immediate vicinity. The application is approved, with conditions (but none that relate to trees) and work starts pretty much before the ink is dry on the DN. Applicant and contractor are acting within the terms of the approved application. Application form, as submitted, can be shown to be incorrect in relation to existing trees. Email / phone contact with Planning officer results in PO stating that unless within CA or TPO'd, there's no requirement for any consideration of trees on or adjacent to a domestic development site.... (?) You can imagine how that conversation went! There is now an excavator on site a a big hole within the RPAs of trees within the development site and that of the larger, mature, TPO'd trees which are nearby off site. If you could accept that the application form was incorrect (either by accident or design) and that the Parish council attempted (maybe not sufficiently forcefully) to highlight this and that the PO didn't take account of it (either because it was insufficiently worded or that they are insufficiently aware of BS 5837) where would you apportion blame (if such a thing would be appropriate?) If it gets lively or if anybody wants to look at the source documents, I can link the planning page where all of the above can be viewed first hand...
-
Not sure if the link will work as it's a FB page...
-
Try page 1 of the thread and read until you either (a) top yourself (b) give up ( c) die of old age! PS - you won't find the answer either..... It's due to be added to this list: http://www.futuristspeaker.com/future-scenarios/10-unanswerable-questions-that-neither-science-nor-religion-can-answer/
-
That was a question I put to the (less than knowledgable / honest) dealership shortly after purchase. Something is out. I wondered if (as I thought) the Invincible gets the larger diameter wheels as part of the spec-up, it had an effect on the speedo. Asked the dealer, They had nothing more than the "as long as it's under and within the variances, it's not a problem." I didn't buy it, along with the other, what I thought were, fairly straight forward questions which resulted in the sort of answers that one wouldn't expect from a professional and knowledgeable product supplier. This whole thread, back at the beginning, came about because I couldn't seem to get any reliable, honest answers from the dealership. The net result is that I think the dealership that supplied my vehicle are either amateur or FOS!