Unauthorised tree work in CA.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

4 minutes ago, Stubby said:

Yes . Its in the rules I think . ?

Wouldn't matter what's in the rules.....

 

They never read 'em and didn't apply 'em anyway....

[Stubby]

6 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Wouldn't matter what's in the rules.....

 

They never read 'em and didn't apply 'em anyway....

I meant its one of the requirements of a PC ...to have said colonel ?

[jfc]

Re Kevin's questions,

First four - depends on the circumstances.
Other four - defo.

Where does tree removal fall in this list of increasing seriousness? Not sure.

The neighbour would have known or had a pretty good idea it was me who reported it anyway.

I need to speak to planning anyway as a tpo application has stalled due to the TO being off. Will sus them out and see if they would be interested.

Definitely been a polarising post.

Jan.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

4 minutes ago, jfc said:

Re Kevin's questions,

First four - depends on the circumstances.
Other four - defo.

Jane.
 

??

 

Theft alright?  No grumbles if someone does your car wireless tonight then or lifts the 395XP you put down on the job site for 2 mins while pouring the tea...  That's the conundrum in this situation...  How do we answer to our own conscience what is "acceptable" and "unacceptable" when it is already set out in law.

 

Each to their own and it's a good point about letting people get on with their lives free from the shackles of authority - I can buy into that too.  I'm also sure I could quite easily reference some authoritative criminology studies which detail the progressive nature of minor (crappy CA tree in this case) towards more serious crimes (unauthorised felling of veteran TPO Oak for example) and the positive deterrence effect of adverse publicity, prosecution or even just a letter from the LA which might serve to avert the possible escalation - but I'm not that bothered.  

 

It's a good thread.  ??

 

 

[Boo Who?]

The CA is there to protect the whole perception of amenity value of an area. TPO’s are put on specific trees perceived to be of amenity value in or out of a CA.
If we let people butcher or remove trees within CA’s without permission, the stock within the CA is both devalued and we lose potential trees that should one day go on to be TPO’d.
In this case it is ‘only’ a birch...
I wish I could report all butchered trees - within a CA or not. I work hard at perfecting my art and hate turning a corner and seeing a stubby ballsup of a reduction!

[openspaceman]

1 hour ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Agreed, on the one hand, it's not the great train robbery.  But conversely, "we" as those that should know better ought to hold ourselves to a higher standard.  

As I said in this instance, there is no reason to believe the tree was worthy of preservation nor if it would be prosecuted and it's a planning matter. The OP is known to the offender and will have to live with them for the foreseeable future .I've not problem with helping the local tree officer out  but it's his or the planning department to decide on a public amenity matter. I don't know why the area is a conservation area.

 

Now if it were an obvious loss of public amenity or right then I would fight it (again) and I wasn't popular with 3 neighbours when I objected to their closing a public footpath, in the event I lost because at the time the historic nature of a public right of way was not grounds for objecting, now I believe it is.

Quote

 

Perhaps you'd have a stab at the previous question - not withstanding the clear exam answer of what is and what isn't lawful is quite obvious, where on the scale of offences would YOU feel compelled to take overt action (even if there was a potential of flash-back)?

It's a foolish game as it all depends on context but:

Quote

 

Speeding - Y/N?

Tends to be anonymous and my evidence would not be used unless I had a video

Quote

Benefit fraud - Y/N?

As it was my wife's job at the time yes, but I actually do not believe benefit fraud to be  a major financial issue compared with the level of  other corruption I have witnessed.

Quote

Tax avoidance - Y/N?

Not unlawful

Quote

Theft - Y/N?

 

Quote

Assault - Y/N?

 

FGM - Y/N?

Murder - Y/N?

Child abuse - Y/N?

Yes to above 5

 

Edited November 18, 2018 by openspaceman
spelling

[john p]

Agreed, on the one hand, it's not the great train robbery.  But conversely, "we" as those that should know better ought to hold ourselves to a higher standard.  

 

Perhaps you'd have a stab at the previous question - not withstanding the clear exam answer of what is and what isn't lawful is quite obvious, where on the scale of offences would YOU feel compelled to take overt action (even if there was a potential of flash-back)?

 

Speeding - Y/N?

Benefit fraud - Y/N?

Tax avoidance - Y/N?

Theft - Y/N?

Assault - Y/N?

FGM - Y/N?

Murder - Y/N?

Child abuse - Y/N?

 

Of course I recognise there is a fine balance in the reality of life, it's just that I see it as one of those things where it's no good bashing your gums down the pub if you don't have the kahoonas to do what you know to be right because it might have a negative come back for yourself.

 

Of course it's not the end of the world, but it does have direct implications for so many of the other common threads in this forum.   For example,  wages (and professionalism) will always stay low if poor practitioners and ill informed customers are content to low-ball the prices of the diligent. 

 

How are those poor practitioners or ill informed customers going to change their behaviours if this type of activity is seen, and perpetuated, as trivial or "not my concern?"

 

It's good to talk about it, I wouldn't think any less of anyone for standing by their own opinion and I'd hope the same might be reciprocated.  

 

Personally, I'd have no problem spending 2 minutes sending an email if it were in my manor and I'd have no problem if someone got the hump about it telling them they are a f*cking chancer since they, and I, both know which of us is taking the piss.  

Speeding, if some dickhead was doing a ton past the school gates, yes.

Benefit fraud/tax evasion (same thing IMO) no.

Theft, a scrote doing over someone s shed, yes, someone taking a block of cheese from Tesco, no.

Assault, depends on circumstances

The rest, yes.

Good thread.

[inthewoods]

1 hour ago, Stubby said:

Surely you have a " busy body doo gooder retired major " on the parish council ?  Send him round to see them and then report  it .....? 

Stubby will do it for half a Guinness! ? ? 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

The reason / purpose of the CA is relevant. 

 

At the risk of appearing to “flip”, I am currently supporting some (quantified) tree removal in a CA as part of a planning ap. 

 

The CA was specifically initiated to protect the historic and architectural value of a coastal fishing village and, in my interpretation, is being misapplied to otherwise low amenity value trees in an attempt to stifle a development opportunity where all other planning obstacles have been overcome and, as is not uncommon, the last vestige of objection has fallen to the tree issue. 

 

Im gonna stick with a ‘general’ stance of being in favour of brining potential transgressions to the attention of the appropriate authority - and leave them to decide - but more than happy to concede that individual circumstances may give rise to personal interpretations. 

 

Are many of the AT massive subscribed to the Tree Warden scheme?

 

We’re out there in the sticks every day, I think we’ve got a lot to offer by way of observation and reporting of pests and diseases for example. 

[inthewoods]

6 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

The reason / purpose of the CA is relevant. 

 

At the risk of appearing to “flip”, I am currently supporting some (quantified) tree removal in a CA as part of a planning ap. 

 

The CA was specifically initiated to protect the historic and architectural value of a coastal fishing village and, in my interpretation, is being misapplied to otherwise low amenity value trees in an attempt to stifle a development opportunity where all other planning obstacles have been overcome and, as is not uncommon, the last vestige of objection has fallen to the tree issue. 

 

Im gonna stick with a ‘general’ stance of being in favour of brining potential transgressions to the attention of the appropriate authority - and leave them to decide - but more than happy to concede that individual circumstances may give rise to personal interpretations. 

 

Are many of the AT massive subscribed to the Tree Warden scheme?

 

We’re out there in the sticks every day, I think we’ve got a lot to offer by way of observation and reporting of pests and diseases for example. 

Funnily enough I'm asking my Nat parks TO about the tree warden scheme tomorrow! ?