Wellingtonia felled by idiots!

[Gary Prentice]

5 minutes ago, swinny said:

The first Sequoia introduced in 1853 be the one at Cluney Gardens, Aberfeldy?

Maybe that developer can transplant it...

 

[Stubby]

10 minutes ago, EdwardC said:

Not really. The fine is unlimited, should the court, even the Magistrates Court, decide to impose it. And then there may be a case for a proceeds of crime order.

True but it has never happened yet in the numerous cases so.. untill it does it is seen as an astute  investment .

[bob]

My local council have taken several through court every year for at least 3 years I am aware of and won them all with sizeable fines imposed. 

[Gary Prentice]

4 minutes ago, bob said:

My local council have taken several through court every year for at least 3 years I am aware of and won them all with sizeable fines imposed. 

I would so too! Used to be a time that a certain female TO (when there wasn't many female TOS) was frequently in the news for prosecuting offenders. 

 

I believe that she's moved on, but good to hear that in her absence others have grasped the reins and continued her works. 

[buffalo606]

Was sent this link earlier this week

https://www.sudouest.fr/2018/11/16/landes-condamne-pour-avoir-abattu-un-chene-multicentenaire-il-devra-debourser-95-000-euros-5572398-3564.php?fbclid=IwAR2WxSSmy_ucRHrfAL-OWJa6rkuBYVX91y0can50pMZ3UDBXjfUjU-aXxKg

google will translate the page if you like

€95,000 fine

[Adam M]

11 hours ago, EdwardC said:

Not really. The fine is unlimited, should the court, even the Magistrates Court, decide to impose it. And then there may be a case for a proceeds of crime order.

I wasn't aware that the Magistrates could impose an unlimited fine. I was under the impression that would be the point of referring to Crown? Happy to be corrected (if you could point out the section in legislation that would be much appreciated).

[Woodworks]

I agree with Stubby in that their nor idiots they know exactly what they are doing and usually get away with it. As I said on the other thread the one time I worked on a development site a protected oak got taken out by a 360 and as far I know there were no consequences. Ooops it was an accident "very sorry" etc

[Treeation]

4 hours ago, Woodworks said:

I agree with Stubby in that their nor idiots they know exactly what they are doing and usually get away with it. As I said on the other thread the one time I worked on a development site a protected oak got taken out by a 360 and as far I know there were no consequences. Ooops it was an accident "very sorry" etc

Maybe the term c&*%s would be more applicable

[Gary Prentice]

7 hours ago, Woodworks said:

I agree with Stubby in that their nor idiots they know exactly what they are doing and usually get away with it. As I said on the other thread the one time I worked on a development site a protected oak got taken out by a 360 and as far I know there were no consequences. Ooops it was an accident "very sorry" etc

You can only blame the LA for that, they would have required a tree survey, method statement and protective fencing and should have conditioned adherence to the AMS. Once the site isn't complying to the conditions of planning consent there is loads of comeback. They can come to site and close it then and there.

[Stubby]

1 hour ago, EdwardC said:

The Legal Aid and Punishment Regs 2015 which amend the TCPA 1990

 

18.—(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.

18(5) In section 210 (penalties for non-compliance with tree preservation regulations)(f), in subsection (2), for the words following “liable” substitute “on summary conviction, or on conviction on indictment, to a fine”.

Can't see the " unlimited " bit  ?

Edited November 30, 2018 by Stubby