________________________________________________________________________
TREES: THE KEY TO CLIMATE PROOFING OUR CITIES- London, 10th July 2008.
A 10% increase in urban tree cover could neutralise rising city
temperatures, but large trees with irreplaceable climate-control benefits
are being lost at an alarming rate. This pioneering conference explores
practical possibilities to reverse tree loss within current planning
framework. It can be done: our objective is to define how to do it. FINAL
BOOKINGS NOW AT WWW.TREEWORKS.CO.UK/SEMINARS
________________________________________________________________________
Afternoon wise ones,
The importance to supply precise and detailed information within a section
211 is widely documented within the DETR guide, the law of Forests and
Hedgerows (C. Mynors, 2002) and The Validation of Planning Applications 2007
and so on. That said, I can?t seem to find any more information on validation
of section 211?s further than; ?For works to trees in conservation areas, it
is important to supply precise and detailed information on your proposal. You
may, therefore, wish to provide the following:??.? compared to ?you MUST
provide the following? for TPO applications;?...? The principal auxiliary
verb, ?wish?, is my concern here.
The question is therefore; can a LPA consider a section 211 notification
invalid as it could with a planning application?
If this is the case, what?s the system for appeal? I can see the applicant
has the right of appeal for non-validation under section 78 of the Act. But I
have difficulty accepting this as I assume the relevant grounds for such an
appeal would be non-determination within the determination period.
My only logical thoughts for appeal would be the right for the applicant to
complain to the Local Government Ombudsman on the grounds of
maladministration.
Can anyone please point me in the right direction.
Kind regards
Andy
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
