Man fined £112k for illegally felling trees

[Steve Bullman]

Too harsh or not?  Discuss

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-41279069

 

[RidArb]

I think it's about right.

 

I had a chat with a person this week who was looking to make some space for a developer and would have resulted in a similar situation to this and he as these people just could not appreciate the value, importance and benefits of the trees.

 

I think it's good that situations like this are being taken as seriously as they should be.

 

Its good for us as an industry as it highlights the importance of getting proper arboricultural advice and good for the wider public as they will get a better service from an industry that acts in a responsible manner

 

it helps add weight to the increasing argument about the value and importance of trees which can only be a good thing in my opinion 

[SteveA]

Good but should have gone further.... to try and offset the loss of habitat they could have made him plant a 10,000 trees on top of that fine, as a community service.

 

cheers, steve

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Not too harsh...

 

Goes nowhere near recovering the financial value which would have been apportioned to the trees if they had been assessed for financial "worth" under one of the available systems, nor does it appear that the level of the fine would act as a sufficient deterrent to future occurrences of a similar nature - when measured against the potential financial gain achieved from the development.  Neither is what might be assumed from the reporting as the 'ignorant act of a farmer' [my assumption based on previous experience] any excuse.

 

Perhaps a proceeds of crime order measured against the total value of the sale value of the land / development would be more appropriate?

 

That said, well done NRW, FC - perhaps you might try and follow suit?

 

 

[TIMON]

Does he get to keep the timber?
If he does then he will have paid £560 per cube.
Hard to make money buying it in at that price.

[Gary Prentice]

A bit off track, but in a TPO contravention and a guilty verdict, where does the fine actuallly go?

 

Does the LA benefit or does the cash go elsewhere?

[Gary Prentice]

So a TPO is made to protect a local amenity, is lost, the LA get involved in a prosecution and then   Central Govt coffers benefit.  It's no wonder some legal departments are reluctant to prosecute contraventions.

 

wouldn't it make more sense to funnel the penalties for loss of amenity back into the local area, in the form of ring fenced funding for planting and an increase in local canopy cover?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

29 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

So a TPO is made to protect a local amenity, is lost, the LA get involved in a prosecution and then   Central Govt coffers benefit.  It's no wonder some legal departments are reluctant to prosecute contraventions.

 

wouldn't it make more sense to funnel the penalties for loss of amenity back into the local area, in the form of ring fenced funding for planting and an increase in local canopy cover?

Good point Gary, why take the hit to departmental resources + the risk of costs if things go wrong for no financial gain....

 

you could argue, it's for the public good, but that might not be a strong enough reason to convince the LA budgeteers!

[SamWhiting12]

Not harsh enough because my guess, he will never pay that fine. Will what he pays of the fine amend the damage he has done?

 

He should be made to plant a 1000 acre wood as part of a community service

 

FYI, the timber never left the site, NRW got there before it was moved.

[Stubby]

All the above and is the development going ahead ? and if so will the remainder of the stumps have to be ground out removed ? or is it all staying as it is , a timely reminder perhaps .