UKTC Archive

RE: Old TPOs

Subject: RE: Old TPOs
From: Alastair Durkin
Date: Feb 07 2019 12:19:14
That’s an interesting little section you've found there Ron. I read from it 
that under the 71 Act at least there was no statutory need to endorse the 
order with any further signature etc if it was unopposed. 


-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info <uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info> 
On Behalf Of Howe, Ron
Sent: 07 February 2019 11:59
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: RE: Old TPOs

It is a mess Jerry. Which is why I referred back the explanation notes 
appended to the 2012 Regs, which basically said that all clauses and previous 
Acts were revoked, save for the information necessary only to identify the 
protected trees. Therefore, all previous TPOs stood as they were with an 
assumption that they were made and therefore the intention was clear. All 
Orders made since 2012 are a completely different matter.

I think my point is that as long as you can defend your position then the LPA 
has the upper hand. And that is somewhat born out by the recent court case 
comments. I think PINS are on a sticky wicket. A further point is that people 
are notified of Orders when for example they buy a property. Yet they don't 
challenge the old Orders do they. So, it is not as if the opportunity isn't 
there. People just take the Order on face value, which to me is acceptance of 
it.

As for land changing over time as result of development, we are lucky here 
that we scanned and plotted all our TPOs 10 years back now so the modern GIS 
overlays are really helpful.

Just sticking with the 1971-74 Acts for the time being, which lasted right up 
until 1990 - Town and Country Planning Act 1971 S.46 and 45. 
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/78/section/46/enacted

Ron Howe
Tree Officer (Planning)
Mole Valley District Council
Tel. 01306 XXX XXX


-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
[mailto:uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Jerry Ross
Sent: 07 February 2019 11:24
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: Old TPOs

Ron -
If you go back to the original legislation you'll find it's not as simple as 
that - there is a very clear inference that if an order is not confirmed by 
the SoS (because of no objections) it must still be confirmed by the LPA.

It's a mess and the sooner all Orders predating 1990 are rescinded (and 
re-created as necessary) the better.
In this case the mess resulted in the person involved being asked to pay
£9000 in Council's costs - mainly because of the extensive work they and 
their lawyers had to do to try (and in my opinion fail) to clarify the 
confusion caused by the mess. So a private individual ends up paying for poor 
legislation.


On 07/02/2019 11:05, Howe, Ron wrote:
I agree, and what I always bear in mind is that we have TPO office files 
(which we have scanned and put online) however, all the original Orders 
should be held by the legal department buried deep along with terrier packs 
etc. with confirmations (as appropriate). With modern Orders our legal 
department only accept the original Order once it is confirmed. So, 
ultimately, the original Orders should be hived away with evidence of 
confirmation, or otherwise. Many old Orders were confirmed by default. Now, 
the modern confusion, led to the confirmation line being added to the TPO 
template. It is however MALADMINISTRATION on PINS behalf to refuse to 
accept that older Orders were confirmed in a different way and to 
invalidate them. PINS need to be mindful of what the courts consider 
correct. If you for example look at the attached 1980 TPO you can see the 
default situation. If anyone wants to challenge the default then they 
should provided evidence that the Order was opposed and revoked by the SoS 
... including PINS.

So yes, you need to be able to defend your TPOs ... I hope this helps.

Ron Howe
Tree Officer (Planning)
Mole Valley District Council
Tel. 01306 XXX XXX

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
[mailto:uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Mark 
Mackworth-Praed
Sent: 06 February 2019 09:35
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: RE: RE: RE: Old TPOs

I think Jon's quite right - a Committee resolution to confirm is just that 
- a resolution. There has to be subsequent action on the Council's part to 
give effect to that resolution (service of relevant notices, signing & 
sealing of confirmed order with/without modifications etc), the necessary 
actions being defined within whichever regulations were in force at the 
relevant time. If those actions weren't taken, then the Order wouldn't have 
been properly confirmed. If PINS is now taking a tougher line on this, so 
much the better in my view.

All the best

Mark M-P


-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
<uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info> On Behalf Of Jon Heuch
Sent: 06 February 2019 08:59
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Old TPOs

Charles



Looks like you need a lawyer that knows about legal process & procedure.



If I am not mistaken a committee meeting merely makes a decision (to 
confirm). The confirmation is a separate process - the TPO being a legal 
document - and the document itself needs to have something done to it, or 
attached to it, with the appropriate signatures, seals, stamps or whatever 
and of course a date..depending on the council's procedures at the 
time...which of course  you have at the tip of our tongue!



I am intrigued to know if your experience is a sign of things to come, or 
an error?



As many councils have TPOs dating back to the 1940s, this may be a serious 
issue.







Jon






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

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/



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

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/
Important: If you currently use a gsi-family domain name (gsi.gov.uk, 
gcsx.gov.uk or gsx.gov.uk) you must replace it with a government domain 
like gov.uk, gov.scot, llyw.cymru or gov.wales by March 2019.


This email is only intended for the individual or organisation to whom or 
which it is addressed and may contain, either in the body of the email or 
attachment/s, information that is personal, confidential and/or subject to 
copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that copying 
or distributing this message, attachment/s or other files associated within 
this email, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in 
error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete it.







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

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/
Important: If you currently use a gsi-family domain name (gsi.gov.uk, 
gcsx.gov.uk or gsx.gov.uk) you must replace it with a government domain like 
gov.uk, gov.scot, llyw.cymru or gov.wales by March 2019.


This email is only intended for the individual or organisation to whom or 
which it is addressed and may contain, either in the body of the email or 
attachment/s, information that is personal, confidential and/or subject to 
copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that copying or 
distributing this message, attachment/s or other files associated within this 
email, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, 
please notify the sender immediately and then delete it.



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

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/



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

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/