Haytop Country Park - Tiny Fine no Deterrent

[Gary Prentice]

I've said it before, but I'll say it again.

 

Most tree protection is implemented because of the benefits to the local area (I know things like carbon sequestration go further but..) So where is the encouragement to the legal departments to prosecute contraventions? They take the time and risks to prosecute, then any fines for the contravention go to central government. 

 

Wouldn't it be more reasonable that the monies raised (the penalty for the crime) were kept local - ring-fenced by the LA for new planting and managing the existing tree stock? There may be a TRN issued, but that's peanuts compared to the local loss where a number of mature trees have been lost.

 

LAs get to keep, AFAIK, all the money from speed cameras - why not for TPO/Felling Licence contraventions?

[onetruth]

On ‎02‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 19:39, Gary Prentice said:

Wouldn't it be more reasonable that the monies raised (the penalty for the crime) were kept local - ring-fenced by the LA for new planting and managing the existing tree stock? There may be a TRN issued, but that's peanuts compared to the local loss where a number of mature trees have been lost.

 

LAs get to keep, AFAIK, all the money from speed cameras - why not for TPO/Felling Licence contraventions?

Good idea, not one I've thought of or heard elsewhere.

 

I don't know what a "TRN" is, but if I remember rightly there was a £30 victim surcharge mentioned in the other thread that's going atm - I'm guessing that is the LA's cut?

 

Edit: tree replacement notice? do I win a prize?

Edited March 9, 2018 by onetruth

[Adam M]

To be absolutely clear, the LPA will not gain financially from a successful prosecution. At best, they will get all of their costs back however when the defendent pleads poverty, they might only get some or even none of it. 

 

Victim surcharge goes elsewhere. 

 

Fine goes elsewhere.

[Gary Prentice]

5 minutes ago, Adam M said:

To be absolutely clear, the LPA will not gain financially from a successful prosecution. At best, they will get all of their costs back however when the defendent pleads poverty, they might only get some or even none of it. 

 

Victim surcharge goes elsewhere. 

 

Fine goes elsewhere.

So there's little real incentive on the LAs part to prosecute. Take all the risks and even if they're successful there's no funding to replace the lost amenity.

[Adam M]

15 hours ago, Gary Prentice said:

So there's little real incentive on the LAs part to prosecute. Take all the risks and even if they're successful there's no funding to replace the lost amenity.

The incentive is being seen to be doing the right thing, but it's risky business, particularly when you're funding out of public funds. It's a crap situation when the defendent pleads poverty and pays less than half of the costs when you look at their website and see them running brand new tractors with full forestry kit and all the trimmings e.g the contractor in the initial post. 

[Gary Prentice]

Doing the right thing, with the associated risk, still means there’s a net loss to local amenity.

 

The entire system seems flawed. Contravene a TPO and fell a mature tree, get fined and the money goes elsewhere. 

 

Get planning consent, which may include tree loss, pay the community charge fee (can’t remember its proper name) and the money can go to building a sports centre elsewhere!

 

If we recognise tree benefits, why can’t we utilise cash realised from their loss in replacement?