The rules say a TOPL was needed but someone applied common sense.
After all why oh why would a TOPL be needed for using a primary school playground, apart from our stupid rules say they do?
We have lost two areas because of this. One was a ESF under the old rules, the other the immediately adjacent public car park. Trying to identify the land owner of one was a nightmare, and then going through the process of the rest of the approval was just prohibitive. Generally for a lot of places, the process is OTT if you ask me.
And as for trying to get approval for the nearby beach…
1 Like
We’ve just arranged permission for an EUF, but it’s taken well over a year to do.
The process is a complete waste of time, it makes sense if you are going to be moving an armoured regiment over a farmers field, it does not make any sense for a group of cadets learning how to leopard crawl in the local park.
12 Likes
Makes even less sense doing Road Marching on roads and Public rights of way.
5 Likes
Bet you wish you were still under the AT Umbrella 
Maybe, at least we could claim pay sorry VA
It’s the wearing of uniform is the issue not numbers.
During a RMTL course a service instructor who was also a RAF Sqt and organising a RAF team was told by his station that they did not need TOPL for RM training.
One organisation two rules, very Astra
1 Like
But do you need to wear Uniform for Training walks? Surely for the organised events that would require uniform TOPL would be someone else’s problem?
TOPL comes down to the blithering idiot who thought we needed in the first place. We were told we needed it for the local park, so the adj contacted the council who thought he was joking when he asked the question. The reply email was it’s a public park you don’t need permission from anyone to use it, unless it is for a business. At the time a few of the parks in the borough were being used by keep fit “instructors”.
1 Like
Yeah, that’s the big problem. You were lucky to actually get them to reply.
But if you don’t have TOPL the regional FTO bounces your EUF, and any training on it.
1 Like
In a long line of stupid regulations that shouldn’t apply to us but do, this is near the top.
9 Likes
I suspect the reply was down to the incredulity of the request.
Maybe, as well as perhaps thinking they will need to do something their end? Perhaps thinking it’s us seeking cover? Its such a mad idea.
“Hi, can we both sign a contract for us to use your park, which anyone can already use for no cost, at any time, so that if we do things which may damage the park, that we have absolutely no intention to ever do anyway, we can pay you money to compensate you for the damage which will likely never happen.
This pointless administrative burden on your legal team will also need to be repeated every year, and if you don’t help us with it, our own rules mean we can’t use the park, and therefore your doing nothing will impact you in no way whatsoever.”
Delete.
9 Likes