kevinjohnsonmbe

I don't think you can do the typing inside a quote if you're on iPhone app for example (I may be wrong) but on a desk top, you quote, then just type inside the quote, using a different colour text makes it stand out from the original. There's tracker on 1 website I use, the others are less frequent so some may not have it. The 6 week issue was the purpose of the original question, but only since, in this case, it was critical to define the period to determine if the job was going to get done before Christmas break. It seems there still is some disagreement about the actual 42/43 day thing. Normally it wouldn't bother me as I wouldn't be on that tight a schedule as to have to worry about it... If it ends up being 2 weeks after the 42 days and nothing heard, I'd just crack on. The "pally" thing, it's great if you can, but we're all busy people trying to get work done and it sometimes feels like all the sympathy is for the LA not the customer of the LA. I wouldn't get any sympathy if my council tax was late. I don't have any sympathy if a timed response is late. I'm probably typing too fast and coming across as abrupt, not intentional, just a bad habit!!

True.... I'm a fully paid up supporter of online submissions now. It's all there, on record.

Define "good relationship". I think mutual respect on the basis of knowledge, accuracy, experience and professionalism is more important than trying to be pally

I can't find any references to notices starting the day after submission / receipt by LA. Portal submissions are registered and transferred to LA showing date of original submission online which subsequently (possibly automatically, not sure) carries forward with same date / time stamp to LA webpage. Is the day after receipt a local interpretation?? In any case and as usual, the original question seems to remain open to interpretation but the problem is resolved since formal reply received 2 days ahead of day 42 (or is it 43?) 👍🏻

Apologies, I deviated off the original 211 topic with that example. It was meant as a supplementary example of an LA wandering off the reservation (either by accident or intent) which was being exampled within 211 replies requiring replanting. My (confusing) example related to a LA seeking to enforce re-planting after a FC FL approved TPO tree fell where the LA re-planting notice was both factually inaccurate and it had already been represented to the LA that they were not the executive authority for felling and therefore could not condition nor enforce a condition. It's still ticking along with LA "seeking further advice from legal." It was the LA re-planting notice that was going to PINS if not retracted. It was retracted. It wasn't so much a passive-aggressive tactic, the re-plant notice had a "timed" period to comply under threat of having the work done by LA and a charge levied against the property. It was a simple presentation of choices - retract or justify.

Looks good!

It's an incomplete question. Any one, in the middle of a field could be less dangerous than any other which is over a high use area... It's the risk of damage / harm rather than the feature which should define danger.

Seen some similar locally. Not consistent on all responses, seem to be a bit random but they are "dressed up" to look like conditions. Trouble is, there are still some people that take an official correspondence from "the ministry" as an authoritative direction that must be adhered to. Had a re-stocking notice issued to a 90+yo landowner client recently. She was really shocked & upset by it. Daughter phoned me to resolve it. Quick meeting with TO and a firm line that unless written retraction issued PINS & associated costs would be applied. Written withdrawal followed, no apology mind.

Read para 3 (a) here Will: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/211 and then think, you wouldn't actually need a defence, since there was no offence if valid notice had been served and the expiry of 42 days had passed and no TPO had been initiated.

Sorry, I meant "errr, no" to LA not you!!

Errr, No!

Makes sense Will. Yes, 6 weeks (if we can ever decide what 6 weeks / 42 days actually is - only important if you wanted to start work on the 42/43 day specifically) from the submission of a valid notice, the LA should either send a notice confirming there is no objection (not mandatory, some may just let the time run and do nothing) or notify that a TPO is to be implemented. No news = no objection. Objection = TPO. That's the 2 options. Might be as well to phone after 6 weeks if no news just to set your own mind / conscience at rest but I wouldn't be inclined to submit another 211 notice.

There's no reference to date of submission +1 day = start of 42 days here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/211 "...after the expiry of the period of six weeks from the date of the notice but before the expiry of the period of two years from that date..." "...after the end of the period of six weeks starting with the date of the notice..." It frequently seems to be within the final week that 211 (non objection) or TPO (approval) is provided.... Maybe it's pressure of work and prioritising but it does sometimes seem a bit of a risky method. As you highlighted above, a TPO response to a CA notice may be considered valid when lawfully served. It could quite easily be that serving the papers fails through absence of the homeowner and nobody at the office to sign for the contractors copy. Papers sit in the post office (un-served) awaiting collection, tree is lawfully removed from day 42 onwards. Just hypothetical obviously, but surely more easily avoided if not left to the 11th hour?? Quick call today confirmed (verbally) that no TPO in my particular circumstance for Thursday and papers have been sent to PO for approval / signature. On the down side, means I have to go to work Thursday. On the plus side, "...there will be turkey for dinner on Christmas day Tiny Tim...."

Here's one of the worst examples I've seen. The Chairman of the PC was horrified to be informed that the tit with the wheel digger that took the bank out could have compromised the trees. He was super keen to explore the possibility of recovering the costs of damage / remediation from the contractor..... Until it came to light that the landscaper was the husband of a parish councillor who'd been given the job as a bung! Then it all went rather quiet......

Yes it is misleading Richard - both ways! It might be seen as advantageous since sick pay, holiday pay, pension, shift pattern are all enshrined and protected in the full time NHS employment and it could be that it is those favourable terms which are facilitating the availability of NHS staff for agency work. I'd be keen to know what proportion of agency hours are satisfied by personnel within other full or part time NHS employment. It may be very low, it may be middly or high. I can't get an answer. If it is middly or high, I think it would significantly and adversely affect public perception of striking NHS staff if it was shown that they were complaining about hours / pay only to find they might be doing extra hours, using skills & expertise gained at public expense to reap rewards from private agency work. The consultants do it as a matter of course.

Same as usual then!

I was never able to get an answer to the question how many full time NHS staff (with jealously guarded terms & conditions of service) have sufficient "spare time" to enrol through agencies to do their usual work at twice the rate? Bit like the fire service, so much "down-time" a great proportion have second incomes.

👍🏻 like it!

Bugger! Not my foremost attribute!! 🤗 That approach simply HAS to be flawed - a TPO cannot be valid BEFORE pen is put to paper! It can't exist before it exists!!

On reflection, your points above appear more measured than my "pull the rip cord" approach! Agree it could / would be argued that a contract was in effect which started with the finance payments. But couldn't it also be true that either the goods were not of merchantable quality / as described and wouldn't the failure to provide the goods have equal measure in a potential breach of contract? What a pickle!

I got into bed after being on cylindrical (bottle shaped) side Gary! Bit shabby this morning 😒

That's what I'm pondering.... Say you'd submitted notice online at 08:15 day 0 (is it day zero or day 1?) and the TPO notification arrived by courier / mail at 10:15 on day 42. You started work at 08:30 day 42. Who's ass is in the sling? It's probably too late and too far down the second bottle to figure out what should be a simple question....

This question only arises because we're on the cusp of the Christmas break and it got me thinking. 6 weeks..... Has anyone got down to the granular detail of exact timings for 6 weeks? Is it time of submission (planning portal) + 6 weeks = expiry time / date or is it just by day/date? If day / date, is it the expiry of 42 days, i.e. day 43? So, if submitted at 14:00 week -6, can work legally start at 14:00 week +6 or would you just go for the day/date (42 days) Would you start on the 42nd day or the 43rd day? To take it one step further, if there is no indication of a TPO by the 41st day, would you do it? Technically incorrect to do so but how likely would a prosecution be? Would it be in the public interest to prosecute because it was day 41 even though there was no intention to TPO? If day 41 is OK, where is the line? Day 40, day 35?

Just starting to look at this, not yet done deep research but wondering if anyone has covered this territory already: I'm seeing quite a few new or replacement installations of children's play areas where it appears blatantly obvious that no consideration has been given to 5837 in regard to digging / landscaping within RPAs, nor the any thought given to future implications of potential hazards associated with drawing, and holding, occupants into potential risk areas if trees become dysfunctional or defective in the future. The installation can cause damage to tree roots and the installers (and new owners) appear oblivious to the potential to encumber the owner with a responsibility for inspection / assessment of existing trees where the human use of the potential hazard area is significantly changed. It appears to be an area that may, or may not, require planning consent, depending upon the size / scale of the installation, the proximity to neighbours, the designation of the existing land mass etc. Doesn't appear to be a clear answer (although Mumsnet did give some opinions!) BSEN 1176 / 1177 (overview here: http://www.wicksteed.co.uk/pdfs/EN1176%20and%20EN1177.pdf) provides the design, installation and maintenance schemes for the play equipment, but, and only based on a quick scan, appears not to link in any way to 5837. Should the standards link to each other? Should we expect anyone other than those quoting standards to actually read them? Would more people read them if they weren't so expensive? Is anyone looking / thinking / seeing a similar situation and starting to look at the details? More to follow when I stop typing this as an excuse to avoid what I should actually be doing tonight!