UKTC Archive

Re: Basis for TPO's

Subject: Re: Basis for TPO's
From: andersonarb
Date: Dec 22 2011 17:20:38

 


But a Circular is still non-statutory, it always boils down to primary and 
secondary legislation ;)

Alastair


 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Alastair Durkin <ADurkin@xxxxxxxxxx.gov.uk>
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Sent: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 15:45
Subject: RE: Basis for TPO's

I think this all boils down to asking the High Court to interpret it and the 
aggrieved taking a punt on what they'll decide, doesn't it Alastair? I 
understand there have now been a couple of High Court challenges and while 
the new Mynors is sitting in the office glowering at me, I've not actually 
studied it yet. I'd be delighted to find clarification in there.

IMO the current widespread system of sticking the TPO objector in front of 
the full Planning Committee and giving the objector 3 minutes to make his 
case, is not any sort of "hearing or inquiry" (BB 3.38) and the very act of 
the same Officer serving the TPO and then considering objections does not 
comply with ECHR's Article 6 anyway. That same Officer then sticking his or 
her summary of the objections in front of a committee comprised of people 
with no training or knowledge of trees or TPOs is not even slightly 
reasonable and I'd hope that any Judge worth his £170k pa would see that 
straightaway. 

But I can see that getting it studied in Court is quite likely to be a high 
risk situation: The one time I got anywhere near, (a tree they'd protected 
simply didn't exist and while my objection asked for clarification they just 
sneered) even my Bentley-driving client (well-resourced?) balked at the 
potential costs. (The non-existent tree is likely to be an issue in the 
planning appeal, so that'll be interesting.)

Bill.




 



-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/