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/
