UKTC Archive

RE: mischievous applications

Subject: RE: mischievous applications
From: Tesh, Jonathan
Date: Dec 23 2002 11:56:54
The planning Green Paper is to address the issue of repeated applications,
so I gather. Don't have further details to hand. I know that with Planning
Applications to build or to change of use of land, then should a refusal be
taken to appeal and the LPA's decision upheld, then for the next 2 years the
LPA is at liberty not to determine a repeat application. Once again, the
position of trees in the system doesn't quite 'fit in'. As far as I am
aware, the only reason trees subject to TPOs are treated as Planning
Applications here is because there is a legal requirement for LPAs to 'keep
a register containing information with respect to matters relevant to tree
preservation orders made by the authority' (s.69 TCPA [as amended]). The
easiest and most logical thing to do is to treat TPO matters as Planning
Applications as you have an instant functional recording system. This is a v
dry subject which I haven't read up upon for ages. Happy to stand corrected,
though. So, I don't know whether the 2 year clause counts in respect of
trees. I strongly suspect not. Might be worth reading the Green Paper to
isolate the rationale behind thwarting mischievous applications and use it
for your own ends? 

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Edmund Hopkins [mailto:edmund.hopkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.gov.uk]
Sent: 23 December 2002 11:12
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: mischievous applications


Chris Hastie <c.hastie@xxxxxxxxx.co.uk> wrote:


Is the tree worth an Article 5 Edmund?  The other thing I wonder, given
how short the timescale since the last app, is if you actually have to
accept it? If it's not materially
different from the previous application can you not just say "go away"?

No its nowhere near an article 5 and yes I think we could reasonably say "Go
away", but I posted my question hoping for advice on whether the LPA can
refuse to book in the application. Dominic's example was helpful though I
see you (Dom) went to several appeals, and kept booking in the apps and
doing the site visits. Its not the question of liability which bothers me
but the mischievous waste of time.

Edmund Hopkins
Arboricultural Officer



***************************************************************************
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal
views which are not the views of Nottingham City Council unless specifically
stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system,
do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance
on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that Nottingham City
Council monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will
signify your consent to this.
***************************************************************************


-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxx.co.uk




**********************************************************************
This Message Is Private & Confidential, Please
Ensure That You Treat It As Such.

If you are not the intended recipient of this message,
please notify the sender as soon as possible.

This Message Is From Doncaster M.B.C.
**********************************************************************


-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxx.co.uk