________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________
Reply interwoven with original for context.
On 02 July 2008 16:16, ANDY WHALLEY wrote:
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.
What verb is used in the Blue Book is, in the end, not particularly
relevent. If in doubt, look at the primary legislation.
A s211 notice must include "sufficient particulars to identify the
tree". If it doesn't, it isn't a notice of the type defined by s211 so
the fact that it was served is not a defence if the work is carried out.
There's no right of appeal against a refusal to register, but I suppose
if it wasn't registered, you wait 6 weeks any way and do the work, are
prosecuted and convicted there is the usual right of appeal against the
conviction.
The question of whether or not an LPA can return a s211 notice which
identifies the tree, but is vague about the work, is rather more vexed.
Despite what the blue book says at 9.5, there is no clear legal
requirement to be specific, but if the work is not described clearly it
leaves the LPA with an enforcement problem. It helps every one if
notifications are clear, and it is sensible for an LPA to try to clarify
any which are not. But in the end if a notice says 'prune' and you don't
manage to clarify things within the six weeks and the customer goes off
and butchers I think it would be tricky to argue in court that what has
been done is not pruning.
--
Chris Hastie
Strategy Officer (Arboriculture)
Warwick District Council
Looking for a tree surgeon? Visit
http://www.warwickdc.gov.uk/cya
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
What's on - www.warwickdc.gov.uk/events
Latest news - www.warwickdc.gov.uk/news
Any opinions expressed in the E-mail are those of the individual and not
necessarily those of Warwick District Council. This E-mail and any files with
it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you
are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering to
the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this E-mail
in error and that any use is strictly prohibited.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
