Requests and responses by category
Requested Tue 17 October 2017
Responded Tue 17 October 2017
Dear HBC: thank you for your prompt response (ref FOI225278) to my email request of 29 September about the threatened tree in Alexandra Park.
I was wrong about TPO 64: it was Blacklands CA I had in mind.
My request about the tree by the Billie-Jo Memorial was this:
Under FOI or otherwise, please send me the arboricultural assessment relating to this proposed felling.
The non-specific photograph received does not meet this request.
While it is not realistic to expect the Council to send itself Section 211 notices, it is entirely reasonable to expect HBC to keep records of what trees it holds and how it treats them and why and when - especially for a site of national importance such as Alexandra Park is.
Please send me therefore the relevant arboricultural appraisal.
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
Planning Application HS/FA/16/00529 (93 Pevensey Road) states in a consultee comment document named 'TREE' states that there is an 'accompanying tree report'.
But it is not on the case file.
Under FOI or otherwise please provide it.
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
Planning Application HS/TP/16/00749 (72 St Helens Park Road) states in the 'AMENDED TREE COMMENTS RELATING TO AMENDED PROPOSAL' that there are 'attached revised comments'.
No such comments are published.
Under FOI or otherwise please provide them.
Response1. Hastings Borough Council has nothing further to add from what was sent to you under FOI2252782. HS/FA/16/00529 - The tree report referred to is the "Arboricultural Impact Assessment" that has been available on public access since 1 July 2016. Please see http://publicaccess.hastings.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=_HSTBC_DCAPR_103841 3. The Arboriculturist consultation comments in relation to HS/TP/16/00749 are also now available online via public access at http://publicaccess.hastings.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=_HSTBC_DCAPR_104064 (dated 26 January on screen). It is noted that the date was unchanged on the actual memorandum in error.
Freedom of Information