kevinjohnsonmbe

Find a closer chip drop. I rarely travel more than 20mins to a JOB let alone a tip site!

I’ll go out on a limb then..... You've had your pants royally pulled down! The tree surgeon is a chancer that knew full well he wasn’t dealing with the tree owner and any invoice he wants to draw up is due to the person that engaged him - there’s no contract with you. Actually, he’s stolen your property and possibly trespassed whilst doing so. The farmer is in similar territory. So you weren’t on site. ‘Reasonable’ would have been sever the stem and push the tree to one side for you to deal with at your discretion (and expense) later. That would have been a bottle of malt as a thank you Yes, it may have cost +/- £850 - £1000 to sort later, or it might have cost £0 if left to naturally decompose but that would have been YOUR decision. What’s done is done, Id agree the hassle of getting heavy about it now is likely more trouble than it’s worth - but if such liberties are not highlighted, discussed and resolved they are guaranteed to continue. The farmer needs telling that he doesn’t enter or act beyond his own land and the tree surgeon should be told that he’s stolen your timber, can send his invoice to his mate and expect no future work or recommends. Unless resolved, you should expect similar liberties in the future. It’s a load of pony what’s been written above about feeling ‘obliged’ to them.... Could you post up your address? Next time I’m passing I’ll just nip indoors, make myself a sandwich, kick my boots off, put my feet up, pour myself a beer and watch your TV. Then, if you’re not happy, I’ll offer to bill you for my time and effort

I think I get your point there.... The 'responsibility' for checking validity of submitted documents certainly lies with the LA - agreed. (we know how that often goes....) Are you contending then that the applicant / agent bears no responsibility for false / inaccurate entries? I know it's just pushing the point to the extreme, but, well, you know....

We liked Fauda, worth a look.

Only after it’s escaped from your wallet!

It’s a bit savage, and a truly dreadful example of human nature, but you don’t really need to hide them, just cut the horn off and they become invisible to the barbarous bastards that hunt them for trophy or oriental medicine.

Prickly you say......! People normally shorten that a bit when I’m on a rant ???

That all makes perfect sense Jules. im now thinking (not in direct relation to this example, but more broadly to try and get closer to that ever elusive definitive answer ?) (a) acknowledging the inability of current planning law to remedy and likely inadequacies in LAs checks and controls, there still remains the false representation for financial gain and proceeds of crime routes. Pretty big hammer but.... Applicant and / or agent say No/No and gain consent, house value increases by XX. That’s a financial gain by false representation. LA records show TPOs, planning app says No/No, work undertaken and property value increase. All the records are there - open & shut case unless they were to somehow claim ignorance. (b) there is no way a chartered professional architect and the planning officer could have NOT seen the TPO trees that they MUST have walked within 3m of when they did site visits.

No offence taken - hide like a rhino! I didn't intend for it to be a question of morals, but rather one of procedure. What would a TO (or a PO or anyone else for that matter) do (procedurally) if it came to light that an approved planning application was deficient on the basis of the original information supplied - specifically in relation to the presence of TPOd trees on an application site where it had been declared that there were no trees. Maybe I didn't put the question quite as comprehensively as I might have done which has resulted in your interpretation of it, but I was in a bit of a rush this morning. Please be assured that my moral compass is regularly calibrated and requires no external validation similarly, there is no crisis of conscience. There is absolutely no requirement to have 'seen' any trees in order to provide a comment on the situation as previously described and there is certainly no compulsion to do so other than of one's own free will and desire. I guess we all 'take' (and to a greater or lesser degree 'give') different things through the medium of AT. Personally, I find it an exceptionally useful 'sounding board', a place to chat, take the piss and get to know folk that you would otherwise never know existed. That some of the most useful feedback has already been received from some of my most respected AT 'friends' has already provided the responses I kind of expected. That they have been via PM simply highlights that they, as I do, recognise the appropriate level of client confidentiality that defines a professional client / service provider relationship. Just to clarify a little bit, I'm not in any way involved in the application which failed to show the existence of TPO'd trees on a development site. I may have some other involvement elsewhere on the site and have happened across this anomaly in the course of researching the task. I have previously (during my short and incredibly frustrating stint as a parish councillor) come across a similar example where a planning application stated No/No where it should have been Yes/Yes and there was absolutely no moral dilemma in that circumstance. Duty is duty, some seem to have varying interpretations of that concept, personally, I don't. The follow-up from that example continued as far as the regional head of planning and I found that - or at least the only response the LA would give was - that once an application has been approved, there is no mechanism through investigation / enforcement to remedy an earlier anomaly - even on the basis of incorrect information in the original submission. You see, the trouble was (as I interpreted it) the LA had balls up in relation to their duty under s197 and they really didn't want to open that can of worms. I did. So I researched all of the applications in the preceding 2 years that had stated No/No and uncovered a startling number that should have been Yes/Yes. So much for canopy action plan and s197! On the basis of that, and the apathetic reaction to the subsequent findings, my local LA earned my well deserved disdain. It is for that reason that I posed the question more broadly - nationally and internationally via AT - in an attempt to encourage some input from other regions which might provide an indication if this is a 'local' shortfall or, more widely evident poor practice. In this instance, my duty is to the client in respect of the work I may undertake for them. I have already highlighted the anomaly to them and suggested that they might wish to invite their RIBA chartered architect to advise how this has occurred and what they intend to do by way of a remedy. That was a freebie and outside of my remit. I'm still interested to hear what a TO / PO might do if similar circumstances were to come to light though. Maybe a simpler form of question: planning application provides empirically incorrect / incomplete information but manages to travel through the system to grant of a DN with conditional approval. If the footprint was stated as X and the building was X+10, that could be an enforcement issue - simple. But what about when an approval is granted on the basis of incorrect / incomplete information, PC and LA don't conduct due diligence checks and approval is issued. Is there even a mechanism for remedying that? I know I've tried to raise it via LA previously and got nowhere. What would happen elsewhere - the same or different? No moral dilemma, just healthy interest.... PS - the spidey senses and gut feeling certainly have their place. I seem to recall a climbing thread were those exact attributes were extolled with notable enthusiasm. Not so sure they transfer quite as well to procedural matters though.

I agree....

The NHS under devolved Welsh Labour..... Just when you think things couldn’t get much worst in 2020, it’s good to think, yes, at least it’s not a Corbyn UK government. Fair play, it’s a pretty poor state of affairs when the ‘best’ thing you can say about a governing party is “...at least it’s not that other lot...”

I've watched that comedy previously.... More of a farce than a comedy - listed building application with a No/No for trees which should have been a Yes/Yes in relation to the TPO'd LA maintained trees less than 10m away from development site. Application approved, so no breach of condition nor enforcement power, no ability to reverse approval. Oh how I f^^^ing laughed when the LA TPO'd mature Beech 10m away exploded in 2 cast a stem on the roof of a community building a year or so later... Whilst it wasn't likely to be attributable to the recent adjacent development application, it still drove the point home.....

Householder planning application submitted by planning agent. Part 6 of the application form stated no trees / hedges (as below) LA and PC don't realise that there actually ARE significant number of TPO trees within application site. PC support. LA approve (no requirement for topo or AIA because the form said no and nobody bothered to check) Conditional approval issued.... Where does this leave the householder? The original submission (by the planning agent was (I'll be kind and say) erroneous) but you'd have to be BLIND not to see the trees as you walk up the drive to the house. PC was irrelevant as is so usually the case, LA was negligent in conducting any form checks.... The application has been approved on the basis of submitted information... What would YOU do as a TO?

Post up the link to the planning page so we can all have a look - if possible / available online.

It’s an open ‘an shut case M’Lud...... Smoking kills!

Come on Mark, get it said.... What was it? You turned Tory ?

I’ll see if I can get a screen grab from dashcam later.... Jollying along the A390 this morning I happened to see a chap up a roadside pole (power I think but I’ll have to check). He was merrily going about his business up a pole, on his one, no one else in sight, on his pole stirrups and (I presume) a flip line. Single worker, 8-10m off the ground, beside a (relatively (for Cornwall)) busy 60mph A road, might have been power / might have been phone line, no TM. Cant help but wonder what his RA would have looked like or if he even gave too much of a tuppeny toss?

Yeah, I dunno what came over me for a minute there - must have been a touch of sun stroke ? I’ve slapped myself back to sense now!

“Lucky” casualties / loss of life was lower than might have been the case if train had been at ‘normal’ capacity. Makes me think about the argument for guards on trains that has been the source of such bitter dispute between unions and operating companies. Was there a guard / second staff member on the train that could have acted as remote eyes for a reversing train? It’s all very well seeking to drive down operating costs but certain sectors just have to have elements of ‘redundancy’ built into the system where consequence of failure is socially unacceptable.

Ponced around in the garden for the morning harvesting wildflower seed. Snoozed for a while around midday. Had a feed then went across the river for a training session. Work.... In this heat? Not bloody likely! (the pringles can is for the seed heads - clip, drop, shake!)

It’s the same with Hilux towing. 3.5 most places, 3 UK, same vehicle!

A right little vipers nest.... Maybe a bit harsh I guess, it is safety related after all.... (must be the heat ‘getting’ to me....)

Maybe hens teeth! Anyone that got them self prosecuted would have to be pretty dull and/or ignorant. For an offence to be committed it has to be proven (or admitted) that the act was ‘intentional.’ Proving intent - rather than negligence - would be a pretty tall order without supporting evidence. All that said, it would take a ‘special’ sort of Neanderthal to intentionally take / damage / disturb an active nest. Makes you wonder if the legislation was actually intended to prevent / prosecute ‘trophy’ egg hunters or perhaps game keepers looking to kill birds of prey and the unintended consequence has spilled over the broader issues associated with tree / hedge cutting.

Y

Ah, bullox.... This could go on longer than the thread it’s in.... Im not playing!