Wellingtonia felled by idiots!

[Adam M]

10 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

So how much did he fine?

Chuff all (2400) as the developer had a nice piece of paper from one of our planners telling them no protected trees on site. Helpful. 

[Toad]

3 minutes ago, Adam M said:

Chuff all (2400) as the developer had a nice piece of paper from one of our planners telling them no protected trees on site. Helpful. 

Did you have a poo on the planners desk? I can post one to them if you would like?

[Gary Prentice]

43 minutes ago, Adam M said:

Chuff all (2400) as the developer had a nice piece of paper from one of our planners telling them no protected trees on site. Helpful. 

Once had a very irate TO land on site screaming stop, all the trees are protected. 

 

Site manager produced a letter from a very junior planning officer stating, incorrectly, that nothing on site was protected. By then most of the roots of any remaining trees had been removed during a reduced dig. 

 

TO was not pleased. 

[Rough Hewn]

Arrived on a large site once, was given a 3" thick ecological/bat report.
Site manager said I had to read and follow it.
A frantic hour of scanning later I realised the report concluded that all wildlife had already left the site.
[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji106]

[Haironyourchest]

On 29/11/2018 at 19:32, Squaredy said:

One thing we can be certain of is that it was not 200 years old.  First Sequoia was introduced to the UK in 1853.

 

Another thing we can be certain of is this is less of a crime than the really old trees that were felled for no good reason in California in the 1800s.  Some of them were 2000 years old.  That was ignorance.  I guess this was incompetence.....or maybe cynical commercialism; though I doubt they will gain much, as it will need to be replaced, so it won't give them room for an extra house or three.

This just reminded me about a video by Gerald Berenek. I'll leave it here... I think we are very quick, these days, to accuse our ancestors of "crimes" - against humanity, nature etc. On the issue of the individual wellingtonia in question, I'm in agreement with the thread, it should have been left alone.

 

[monkeybusiness]

The whole planning process isn’t fit for purpose imo. How many speculative sites get clear-felled before any surveys take place? I’d bet BS5837 has been responsible for more tree felling than tree retention if all things are considered...

[Khriss]

On 30/11/2018 at 20:47, Rough Hewn said:

Arrived on a large site once, was given a 3" thick ecological/bat report.
Site manager said I had to read and follow it.
A frantic hour of scanning later I realised the report concluded that all wildlife had already left the site.

.......did that have my name on it ? Perchance k

[Gary Prentice]

On 30/11/2018 at 20:47, Rough Hewn said:

Arrived on a large site once, was given a 3" thick ecological/bat report.
Site manager said I had to read and follow it.
A frantic hour of scanning later I realised the report concluded that all wildlife had already left the site.

The tree man is there to sort all the trees and tree related problems, don't expect anyone else to look at reports, do anything related to trees etc. That's for the arb to sort out

[sean]

I have been doing some research into this sad situation and here is a quick outline of my findings.

 

It appears that the Wellingtonia in question. was planted in 1842  by John Dillwyn Llewellyn. He was a prominent member of Victorian Society and was a pioneer of Horticulture, Photography and Astronomy. The first photograph of the moon was taken from an observatory that he built on his estate.  

I have seen the Arboricultural report which  clearly identifies the Wellingtonia as a Category A (Heritage) tree and is clearly marked for retention. I have also spoken with the consultant arb who put the report together who in his words 'is gutted and feels sick' that the tree has been removed. On Friday I finally had a call back from from the MD of Enzo homes who maintains 'that it was a mistake. I asked my foreman to mark all trees that had a TPO and the Welligtonia was missed'. 

For  a tree of this significance to be felled 'by mistake' is unbelievable and inexcusable. 

With regards to fines etc, what is an acceptable amount? We are all aware of the pitiful fines that have been served to developers in the past so what is an adequate fine which would serve as a deterrent in the future? Given that this particular tree has a CAVAT value of approx £350,000 should the fine be an equivalent amount perhaps?

 

And now there are accusations of more trees being removed illegally.    

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/more-trees-may-been-removed-15500144

Edited December 4, 2018 by sean

[Gary Prentice]

The developer has been 'asked' not to fell anymore trees (than all the ones  that they shouldn't have already)! 

 

That's all right then.

 

if they have already breached the conditions relating to trees that I'd presume were part of planning consent, why haven't the LA just stopped all work on the site already?

Edited December 3, 2018 by Gary Prentice