NF and ActewAGL Distribution (Energy and Water)

[2011] ACAT 76

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

NF and ActewAGL Distribution (Energy and Water) [2011] ACAT 76

Case Number   2011/1162

Catchwords:             ENERGY AND WATER – Non-Hardship Complaint – network operations – requirement to clear vegetation around power poles – whether Policy of 1.5 metre clearance is in effect – whether Policy is reasonable - whether valid notice to undertake clearance work issued

Utilities Act 2001, ss 7, 110, 125

Networks (Public Safety) Regulations 2001, reg 25

ActewAGL Electricity Connection and Distribution Standard Customer Contract, cl 3.20

Re Secretary, Department of Social Security and Carruthers (1993) 31 ALD 567

Tribunal:           Peter Sutherland, Senior Member

Date of Orders:  28 October 2011

Date of Reasons for Decision:      31 October 2011

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )
CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL )       2011/1162

BETWEEN:

NF

Applicant

AND:

ACTEWAGL DISTRIBUTION

Respondent

TRIBUNAL:              Peter Sutherland, Senior Member

DATE:  28 October 2011

ORDERS

1.      The complaint application is upheld.

2.The "Final Notification to Clear Trees" (No 14311, dated 5 November 2010) and the "Notification to Clear Trees" (No 66108, dated 30 August 2010) issued to the Applicant are defective and can not be relied upon by ActewAGL Distribution to require the Applicant to undertake vegetation clearance in relation to two poles at the rear of his property.

………………………………..
Peter Sutherland

Senior Member

REASONS FOR DECISION

THE COMPLAINT

1.The Applicant complainant is a resident of North Canberra.  In this Decision and Reasons he is referred to as "the Applicant" or “Mr NF” for reasons of personal privacy.

2.On 10 November 2010, the Applicant made an oral complaint to ACAT Energy and Water which was recorded in the following form:

Client received notice to clear vegetation around two power poles, one on his property, one is on his neighbour’s property.  Client disputes the necessity to clear all vegetation within a 1.5 metre radius from the power poles, and questions whether AA has power to decide upon this figure of 1.5 metres.  He received correspondence from AA’s legal team setting out their grounds for the figure of 1.5 metres but he disputes their grounds. He is also concerned that AA may have accessed his property to inspect the power poles without providing him with “the required written seven days notice”.

3.The Applicant subsequently provided a more detailed written complaint and four photographs showing the poles, trees and vegetation in dispute.  He also provided copies of two notices: "FINAL - Notification to clear trees", No 14311 of 5 November 2011, and "Notification to clear trees", No 66108 of 30 August 2010.  The Applicant indicated he would be happy to trim the branches to a 0.5m clearance from the poles.

COMPLAINT APPLICATION PROCESS

4.In accordance with its standard non-hardship complaint procedures, the Tribunal attempted to resolve the complaint by facilitating communication between the Applicant and the relevant utility, ActewAGL Distribution, which is responsible for electricity network operations in the ACT.  The first step in this process was to invite the utility to respond in writing to the complaint.

5.On 19 January 2011, ActewAGL Distribution provided a written response to the complaint.  This response was substantially outside the 28 days the Tribunal generally expects for a substantive response.  The ActewAGL response made the following points:

·Section 125 of the Utilities Act 2001 gives a network operator a discretion to determine whether structure or activities interfere, or are reasonably likely to interfere, with the electricity network, and issue a Network Protection Notice accordingly.

·Clause 3.20 of ActewAGL’s Electricity Connection and Distribution Standard Customer Contract provides that a customer “must ensure that vegetation and structures located on the premises do not interfere with our ability to access and inspect equipment and infrastructure whether that equipment or infrastructure is located above or below ground”.

·ActewAGL requires a 1.5m clearance around power poles to ensure that access and maintenance can be carried out safely.  A 0.5m clearance is not sufficient.

·The ActewAGL policy is informed by the Utilities Act, the Utility Networks (Public Safety) Regulations 2001, Energy Networks Association Guidelines, industry best practice, and occupational health and safety (OHS).

6.The ActewAGL response was forwarded to the Applicant, who responded by e-mail on 3 February and 10 February 2011.  This response made the points that ActewAGL had essentially simply restated their earlier position without addressing the specifics of the case or properly justifying why their policy appeared to be more restrictive than the regulations.

7.After reviewing the Complaint File, the Tribunal considered that a formal hearing was the preferable process for resolving the complaint as the parties had indicated very firm, and conflicting, points of view and further exchanges of correspondence was unlikely to lead to a settlement offer or successful resolution.  The Tribunal ordered that the name and address of the Applicant was not be published other than with the express permission of the Applicant.

HEARING PROCESS

8.A Hearing was conducted on 11 April 2011.  The Applicant attended in person and ActewAGL was represented by Mr Ian Male and Mr Alec Aloni from the Respondent's Legal Section.  At the Hearing, the Applicant gave detailed evidence and had an opportunity to question ActewAGL’s representatives.  ActewAGL gave evidence supporting their policy position, emphasising in particular their duty of care to employees and OHS issues arising from the location of poles, uneven ground, the location of fences, etc.  ActewAGL stated strongly that they required access to the entire circumference of a pole and that they operated under a 1.5m policy promulgated in 2002.

9.As a result of evidence given by the Applicant (who had downloaded material from the ActewAGL web site) and imprecise answers to questions by ActewAGL, the Tribunal decided that further written evidence was required before the matter could be finalised.  The Tribunal adjourned the Hearing and directed ActewAGL to provide to the Tribunal by 4 May 2011:

(a)     A copy of the Pole Clearance Policy, said to be adopted in 2002, requiring clearance of 1.5 metres from electricity poles;

(b)     A copy of documents created at that time which supported the need for a policy change from a clearance of 0.5 metres, for example OHS reports, consultation reports, best practice analysis, community impact analysis, etc.

10.ActewAGL provided a substantial volume of documents in early May 2011 in response to this Direction; an Index for the documents was also provided (Attachment A).  While some of the documents were highly relevant to the issues in contention, other documents were of little or no relevance, eg documents relating to vegetation clearance standards for electricity wires and Codes for Prevention of Falls and Portable Ladder Standards.

11.The Tribunal reviewed all of the material supplied by ActewAGL and invited the Applicant to view them at the ACAT Registry.  The Index and those documents considered by the Tribunal to be relevant to its consideration were copied and provided to the Applicant on 9 June 2011.  In its correspondence, the Tribunal indicated some preliminary findings:

1)ActewAGL adopted a policy in 2002 requiring a 1.5m clearance around poles;

2)This policy has been communicated to the public through various forums and media.

3)Upon review of the material supplied by ActewAGL I indicate a preliminary finding that a clearance of 1.5m is a reasonable requirement.

The Applicant was invited to make written submissions in relation to the documents by 30 June 2011.

12.In late June, the Applicant provided a further written submission, accompanied by eight new photographs, showing examples in North Canberra where electricity poles do not have a vegetation clearance of 1.5 metres.  In his submission, the Applicant said:

(a)He concurred with preliminary finding (1) (above), but noted that there was no independent rationale for the policy;

(b)He concurred with preliminary policy (2) (above) in that there had been some communication of the policy in 2002, 2003 and 2004, however it had not been successfully communicated or enforced (except perhaps very selectively);

(c)In relation to preliminary finding (3) (above), he contested that it was a reasonable policy.  In particular, he pointed out that the material provided lacked clarity and often referred to the “business end” of power poles rather than ground clearance.  Four of the diagrams suggested that the industry requirement does not relate to clearances around the base of power poles.  Also many instances can easily be found in the Inner North where power poles do not meet ActewAGL’s stated policy, which implies that they have not enforced the policy since 2002 or are enforcing it selectively.

13.The Tribunal member was overseas in June and July 2011 which unfortunately delayed progression of the complaint.

14.On 3 August 2011, ActewAGL was provided with the Applicant’s response and photographs.  On 23 August, ActewAGL provided to the Tribunal a detailed written response which set out in tabular form, the preliminary findings, the Applicant’s response, and ActewAGL’s response to the Applicant’s contentions.  In summary, ActewAGL contended that:

(a)they had provided sufficient evidence that the Policy derives from industry practice and stressed its OHS obligations in relation to its employees;

(b)ActewAGL does not publicise its policies.  Rather, material aspects of each policy are distilled into a form and language appropriate for the intended audience taking into account the particular media.  ActewAGL did not accept that it “selectively" enforces its policies;

(c)Taken together, the text of the documents and diagrams indicate clear industry practice in relation to pole clearances.  While consideration should be given to maintaining amenity value, clearances must be achieved to prevent vegetation contacting the pole, enable the unhindered climbing of ladders in safe locations and ensure there is adequate clear space for a full excavation and inspection of the below ground area around the pole.  ActewAGL does not consider that 1.5m is "impractical" in this instance.

15.The ActewAGL response was provided to the Applicant on 29 August 2011 and he was given an opportunity to make any final comments.  These were received by e-mail on 31 August 2011, and included advice that the Applicant would be overseas between 12 September and 17 October 2011.  The Applicant made some brief comments covering matters he had previously raised, and suggested that there would be value in establishing a specific regulation for clearances from power poles as there is for clearances from power lines.  He urged the Tribunal to find that ActewAGL's policy is more restrictive than is required under ACT law.

16.In mid-October 2011, the Tribunal reviewed the hearing file and commenced preparing written reasons for decision.  This consideration of the evidence led the Tribunal to conclude that a resumed hearing was required as it proposed to make findings on an issue which had not been raised by the parties and which would directly affect the outcome of the complaint.  This issue was whether the "Final Notification to Clear Trees", No 14311 of 5 November 2010 (the "Final Notice"), and the "Notification to Clear Trees", No 66108 of 30 August 2010 (the "First Notice"), issued to the Applicant could be relied upon by the ActewAGL Distribution to require the Applicant to undertake vegetation clearance in relation to two poles at the rear of his property.  The two Notices are Attachment B and Attachment C respectively.

17.On 24 October 2011, the Tribunal advised the parties about the need for a resumed Hearing and provided them copies of several ActewAGL documents which were not yet in evidence but were relevant to the issue.  To assist the parties prepare for the resumed Hearing, the Tribunal gave them a draft of findings and decision proposed to be made by the Tribunal.

RESUMED HEARING

18.A resumed Hearing was held on 29 October 2011 and was attended by the Applicant and by Mr Aloni for the Respondent.  Mr Male also represented the Respondent during the latter part of the Hearing.

19.The Applicant stated that he agreed with draft Findings (1) and (2) (with some clarifying observations), that he disagreed with draft Finding (3) for reasons already strongly canvassed, and that he agreed with Finding (4).  He queried whether the effect of these findings and decision might easily be set aside by ActewAGL by their re-inspecting the property and issuing new, valid notices.

20.The Respondent agreed that its information in public communications needs to be clear and consistent, and already had under consideration some rewriting of documents to improve them. However ActewAGL did not make any changes while the Hearing process was underway as this could be considered premature. ActewAGL supported Finding (3), stating that a 1.5m, 360 degree clearance from the base of power poles is necessary for OHS reasons. ActewAGL disputed Finding (4) on the basis that it was only required to issue one notice under s 110 and the First Notice was in sufficient compliance with s 110 to be valid.

21.After considering the oral submissions of the Parties, the Tribunal gave an oral decision and advised that a written Decision and Reasons for Decision would be issued in the following week.

LEGISLATION

22.Section 125 of the Utilities Act 2000 provides authority for ActewAGL to enter the Applicant's property and require the Applicant to take action to stop any interference with the network:

125Network protection notices

(1)This section applies if a responsible utility is satisfied that a structure or activity on, under or over land or water interferes, or is reasonably likely to interfere, with the network or a network facility.

(2)The utility may give the land-holder written notice to take whatever action is necessary to stop the interference with the network or facility, or to remove the likelihood of that interference.

(3)The notice must—

(a)indicate the structure or activity; and

(b)require the land-holder to take stated action to stop the interference, or remove the likelihood of the interference, within a stated period; and

(c)contain a statement about the effect of subsection (5).

(4)The stated period must be no less than 14 days starting on the date the notice is given to the land-holder.

(5)If the land-holder does not comply with the notice—

(a)the utility may do whatever is necessary to stop the interference or remove the likelihood of the interference; and

(b)the reasonable expenses thus incurred by the utility are a debt due to the utility by the land-holder.

(6)Subsection (5) (b) does not apply to a structure that was, or an activity that commenced, on, under or over the land before the installation of the network or facility to which the interference relates.

(7)In urgent circumstances, subsection (2) does not apply and the utility may do whatever is necessary to stop the interference or to remove the likelihood of the interference—

(a)without notice to the land-holder; and

(b)at the expense of the utility.

(8)If—

(a)a utility acts under this section in relation to a structure that was, or an activity that commenced, on, under or over the land before the installation of the network or facility to which the interference relates; and

(b)a person suffers loss or damage because of the utility’s action;

the amount of the loss or damage is a debt due to the person by the utility.

(9)This section has effect in relation to a tree that is a registered tree under the Tree Protection Act 2005 subject to that Act, part 3 (Protection of trees).

NoteUnder the Tree Protection Act 2005, pt 3 it is an offence to damage a registered tree (or do prohibited groundwork in the tree’s protection zone) unless the damage or groundwork is allowed under that Act. Application may be made to the conservator for approval of tree damaging activity or prohibited groundwork (including in urgent circumstances).

(10)In subsection (7):

urgent circumstances means circumstances in which it is necessary to protect—

(a)     the integrity of the network or facility; or

(b)     the health or safety of people; or

(c)     public or private property; or

(d)     the environment.

23.Section 7 of the Utilities Act gives a broad meaning to "the network or a network facility":

7Electricity network

(1)For this Act, an electricity network consists of infrastructure used, or for use, in relation to the distribution of electricity by a person for supply to the premises of another person.

(2)In this section:

infrastructure means—

(a)     powerlines; or

(b)     substations and equipment for monitoring, distributing, converting, transforming, or controlling electricity; or

(c)     a structure supporting overhead powerlines; or

(d)     wires, ducts or pipes for wires, or equipment; or

(e)any other thing ancillary to any other part of the infrastructure.

(3)An electricity network does not include infrastructure that is outside the network boundary.

24.The Dictionary to the Act contains a definition of "network facility":

network facility means any part of the infrastructure of a network.

25.Section 124 makes it a criminal offence to interfere with a network or a network facility.

26.Division 7.3 "Performance of network operations" contains a specific provision about vegetation management, namely s 110 which qualifies the more general operation of s 125:

110Notice about lopping trees etc on private land

(1)This section applies to network operations to the extent that they involve—

(a)    the felling or lopping of trees on private land; or

(b)    the trimming of roots of trees or other plants on private land; or

(c)    the clearing or removal of vegetation on private land.

(2)Before a utility begins such operations, it must give the land-holder notice of the proposed operations.

(3)The notice—

(a)    must be given at least 7 days before the operations begin; and

(b)    must indicate the trees or vegetation affected and the activity proposed; and

(c)    may require the land-holder to carry out the activity within a stated period; and

(d)    if paragraph (c) applies—must contain a statement about the effect of subsection (6); and

(e)    if the operations relate to other network operations for which notice is required under this division—may be given in or with the notice of the other operations.

(4)The land-holder may waive its right to all or part of the minimum period of notice under subsection (3)(a).

(5)If subsection (3)(c) applies, the stated period within which the land-holder is required to carry out the activity must run for at least 7 days commencing on the day the notice is given to the land-holder.

(6)If the land-holder does not carry out the activity in accordance with a requirement in the notice mentioned in subsection (3)(c)—

(a)    the utility may carry out the activity; and

(b)    the reasonable expenses thus incurred by the utility are a debt due to the utility by the land-holder.

(7)Subsection (6)(b) does not apply to a tree or vegetation growing on the land before a network facility was installed on the land.

(8)In urgent circumstances in which it is necessary to protect—

(a)    the integrity of a network or a network facility; or

(b)    the health or safety of people; or

(c)    public or private property; or

(d)    the environment;

subsections (2) and (3) do not apply and the utility may carry out the operations at its own expense.

27.The Utility Networks (Public Safety) Regulations 2001 regulates vegetation clearances from aerial power lines but does not regulate vegetation clearances from power poles.  Regulation 25 states:

25Clearances from aerial lines—vegetation

(1)A lessee of territory land must not, without reasonable excuse, allow any part of a tree or other vegetation on the land to be too close to an aerial line.

Maximum penalty:  10 penalty units.

(2)A person must not, without reasonable excuse, prune or clear a tree or other vegetation if any part of the tree or vegetation is likely to fall too close to an aerial line.

Maximum penalty:  10 penalty units.

(3)A part of a tree or other vegetation is too close to an aerial line if at any time it is within the minimum distance from any part of the line worked out in accordance with table 25.

column 1	column 2	column 3	column 4	column 5
direction in which minimum distance must be observed	minimum distance from insulated aerial cable or insulated aerial service line, where- U  1 kV	minimum distance from aerial conductor or covered aerial cable, where- U  1 kV	minimum distance from aerial conductor or aerial cable, where- 1 kV < U  33 kV	minimum distance from aerial conductor or aerial cable, where- 33 kV < U  132 kV
any direction	1.0m	1.5m	2.0m	3.0m

NoteSymbols used in table 25 are defined in the dictionary.

FINDINGS AND DECISION

28.On the basis of the oral evidence and materials before it, the Tribunal makes the following findings:

1)ActewAGL adopted a Policy in 2002 requiring a 1.5m clearance around power poles;

2)This Policy has been communicated to the public through various forums and media; however the information conveyed has not always been consistent and unambiguous;

3)A clearance of 1.5m around power poles is a reasonable requirement for the occupational health and safety of ActewAGL network operations field staff and is consistent with industry practice;

4)The "Final Notification to Clear Trees", No 14311 of 5 November 2010, and the "Notification to Clear Trees", No 66108 of 30 August 2010, issued to the Applicant are defective and can not be relied upon by ActewAGL Distribution to require the Applicant to undertake vegetation clearance in relation to two poles at the rear of his property.

29.On the basis of these findings, the Tribunal upholds the complaint application made by the Applicant and directs that the Respondent utility cannot rely on the Final Notification to Clear Trees, No 14311 of 5 November 2010, or the Notification to Clear Trees, No 66108 of 30 August 2010, to require the Applicant to undertake vegetation clearance in relation to two poles at the rear of his property.

CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS

Finding (1) Adoption of the Policy

30.At the first Hearing, some doubt was raised that ActewAGL had, in fact, adopted a policy requiring a minimum 1.5m vegetation clearance from power poles. This issue was resolved by the provision of a document "ActewAGL, EN 4.2 P12, ActewAGL's Vegetation Management Strategy and Plan", which had a Release Date of 10 December 2002. Paragraph 6.3.1 of the Policy stated "A minimum of 1.5m clearance around the base of the pole/tower as outlined in Trees, powerlines and safety brochure shall be maintained at all times to allow ActewAGL to conduct inspection of the poles". I consider this is sufficient evidence to support Finding (1), noting that the clearance requirement is expressed as necessary for ActewAGL to conduct inspection of poles, not as an ongoing access requirement.

Finding (2) Communication of the Policy to the Public

31.The Tribunal agrees with the ActewAGL submission that the policy document itself need not be given to customers and that a reasonable approach is distil the material aspects of each policy into a form and language appropriate for the intended audience taking into account the particular media.  Documents supplied to the Tribunal by ActewAGL demonstrate that there has been dissemination of the 1.5m policy, for example by Yellow Pages advertisements in 2003 and subsequent years.

32.In this case, however, there appears to be inconsistent information being given to the public about clearance requirements for powerpoles.  Pages on the ActewAGL web site state that vegetation must be cleared 1.5m from powerpoles, however a "Frequently Asked Questions" document attached to ActewAGL notices of inspection states that a clearance of 0.5m is required at the base of a pole for inspection purposes.  This inconsistency supports a finding that the 1.5m powerpole clearance policy has been communicated to Canberra electricity customers, however the communications have not always been consistent or unambiguous.

Finding (3) Requirement for a 1.5m Clearance

33.The Applicant urged that a ground clearance of 1.5m for the whole circumference of a powerpole is unreasonable and therefore is outside the legislative authority of the Act.  He also pointed to an apparent lack of enforcement of such a policy in the leafy suburbs of Canberra.

34.In the end, the Tribunal considers that the occupational safety requirements for pole access are primarily a matter for ActewAGL Distribution and that the Tribunal should override the utility's judgment only if there is a manifest unreasonableness in the requirement.  I cannot make such a finding.

35.Important support for the reasonableness of  ActewAGL's policy is found in the document "ISSC 3 Guideline for Managing Vegetation Near Power Lines" which, at clause 4.7, states that the minimum safety clearance from poles is 2m and includes Drawing 4.1 which is an explicit diagram specifying a 2m clearance with the notation "Pole clearance (2m radius trim/clear all vegetation".

Finding (4) The Notifications to Clear Trees

36.Where legislation provides for a notice process, it is well established law that strict compliance with those provisions is required, particularly where non-compliance gives rise to a criminal offence or some other punitive sanction.  See for example Re Secretary, Department of Social Security and Carruthers (1993) 31 ALD 567 where O'Connor J referred to "the long-standing common law principle that statutes are to be construed strictly where penalties apply" (at 567). In this case, criminal sanctions are highly unlikely to follow non-compliance, however the customer land holder is likely to incur considerable expense in complying with the notice and must meet the utility's costs of rectification if he or she does not comply.

37.The "FINAL - Notification to clear trees", No 14311 of 5 November 2010 ("the Final Notice"), which was served on the Applicant, cites the authority of Part 7 of the Utilities Act but does not specifically refer to s 110 of the Act under which the Notice was issued. While a reference to s 110 in the Final Notice would be preferable, I do not think that this omission invalidated the Final Notice as s 110 is located in Part 7 of the Act and therefore the customer is given some information about the legal source of the rights and responsibilities of the utility and its customers. Note that the initial "Notification to clear trees", No 66108 of 30 August 2010 ("the First Notice"), contains a specific reference to s 110.

38.A more serious defect in the Final Notice is its reference to "powerlines" in the bolded statement "A reinspection of the tree(s) on this property has found that the tree(s) are still too close to the powerlines".  This statement is obviously inaccurate as the problem sought to be remedied is vegetation growing closer than 1.5m to two power poles.  References to "tree(s)) are given an extended meaning in the Final Notice, however there is no such extended meaning given to "powerlines" to include poles or other network infrastructure.  In fact, such an extended meaning would be inappropriate because the Final Notice states that the customer must use an accredited tree surgeon to do the work.  This requirement would be inappropriate in relation clearance of ground vegetation which is the case with the Final Notice.  In the Comments section of the Notice, there is a clear reference to "power pole" but I am inclined not to accept that this remedies the defect in the Final Notice.

39.The layout of the First Notice provides the relevant information in a clearer form than the Final Notice, for example it includes a map and, importantly, check boxes of various potential problems. I accept that this First Notice gives sufficient information for the purposes of s 110(3)(b) of the Act.

40.Finally, the most serious defect is the reference in both Notices to the Utilities Network (Public Safety) Regulations 2001, which is accompanied by a circle around the "Minimum distance" of 1.5m.  This is a highly misleading statement as it cites the specific legislative authority of the Regulations for the requirement to "cut back to 1.5 meters from power pole" in the Final Notice and "Trees too close to poles" in the First Notice.  The Regulations have no relevance to the Notices issued to the Applicant and the reference to its statutory authority masks the fact that ActewAGL is relying on a Policy for the requirements in the Notices.  In my opinion, this defect alone is enough to overturn both Notices.

41.The defect in the Final Notice could be seen as invalidating it or as rendering the Notice of no effect because it does not sufficiently identify a requirement.  In either case, ActewAGL Distribution are unable to rely on the Final Notice to require the Applicant to cut back vegetation from the two power poles in his back yard.  They also cannot undertake the work themselves as they have not complied with s 109(2) and (3).  ActewAGL also cannot rely on the First Notice for the reason given in the previous paragraph.

RECOMMENDATIONS

42.It is important to acknowledge that the decision in this case does not affect the vast majority of tree clearance notices issued by ActewAGL, which involve powerline clearances.  While the form of both notices, in relation to powerline clearances, could be improved, they do meet statutory requirements.

43.However, there is a problem in relation to the use of the current notice templates for vegetation clearance from the base of power poles, which I recommend ActewAGL should address as a matter of urgency.  This could be achieved by having separate templates for power pole clearance notices, however I consider that customer convenience and administrative efficiency would be better served by having one notice which encompasses all vegetation work required of a customer householder as the first notice. 

44.I recommend that the practice of issuing a final notice after re-inspection be continued, because of its convenience to both the customer and the utility, and that this final notice be the notice upon which action under s 110(6) is taken. However, if the final notice is to be valid, the notice template must be substantially improved. Consideration should be given to having one template for powerline clearances (where the Regulations apply and accredited tree surgeons must be used) and a separate final notice template for other vegetation clearances (where policy applies and often there is no need for the work to be done by an accredited tradesperson).

………………………………..
Peter Sutherland

Senior Member