Another TPO result for Poole BC

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Poole setting the standards which others should be striving to achieve again - Unless, genuinely, that really IS the only borough where inappropriate felling is taking place.  More likely it’s the only borough making the effort to prosecute. 

 

Possible point of contention over the valuation issue though - if you ‘add’ the notional value of property increase, then ‘subtract’ the CAVAT value calc of the trees which have been removed, I suspect it would return a net devaluation of the property potentially negating the case for proceeds of crime recovery action...?

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6911341/Millionaire-businessman-67-chopped-11-century-old-protected-trees-ordered-pay-170-000.html

 

 

[Stubby]

One for the " Rate my hinge " thread there ?

Edited April 11, 2019 by Stubby

[Roz]

I agree but its not always that straight forward to bring a criminal prosecution once all the facts come to light as it has to be 99.9% not based on balance of probability, in the respect that the Council also  have to consider is it expedient and in the public best interest.

 

In this case YES, I had one 18 months ago where a sub contractor removed 10 of 12 TPO trees on a development site.  Straight forward you would think?  Well the developer held a site meeting with all parties - tick in his box, the arb consultant took the TPP and stated how the trees were marked and they were fenced off leaving the TPP on site - why wouldn't you?, the contractor sub contracted and they said they never had a copy of the TPP and to add to the mix the site was under remediation for asbestos so they all blamed the remediation company as they were in control of the site and pointed the finger at the guy on the ground in charge on the day who apparently couldn't speak English and just wanted the job done.  To add another layer this arm of the remediation company went into administration after completing the project so we couldn't interview them under caution!

 

The trees removed were identified for retention within open spaces following planning approval of an agreed layout so at that time it wasn't that they were going to benefit financially from putting more units on the site............Id say one big F@*K up......I think the Council would have looked like an episode from the Magic Roundabout with that one in front of a judge !!

 

On the flip side they agreed a hefty replacement scheme of 10 specimen trees........................ 

 

I would guess to a certain extent this was fairly straight forward case.........bloody good result though

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

All understood Roz, question still stands though....

 

Either PBC are presented with what appears to be the ‘simple’ cases or they have a different organisational attitude towards the issue. It ‘seems’ like there is a willingness AND a success rate more than elsewhere?  Just ‘seems’ that way from press report...

[Mark Bolam]

I would have thought a result was pretty much guaranteed every time?

 

TPO'd tree gone? Guilty.

 

Case closed M'Lud.

[Mick Dempsey]

They’re always “millionaire businessmen” aren’t they? Just so we know we supposed to hate them.

 

Looks like no shortage of trees there, TPOs put on them for spite probably. 

 

Load of nonsense.

[Mark Bolam]

All businessmen are millionaires Mick, it's a known fact.

 

Heartless, tree-hating bastards, every single one of them.

[Mick Dempsey]

S’right, God forbid he should get more light or improve his garden.

Let him sit in darkness in his little plot because some bloke from the council decrees it.

 

 

[struie]

19 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Poole setting the standards which others should be striving to achieve again - Unless, genuinely, that really IS the only borough where inappropriate felling is taking place.  More likely it’s the only borough making the effort to prosecute. 

just read this,nuts off,with blunt knife springs to mind,smarmy lookin twat.

Possible point of contention over the valuation issue though - if you ‘add’ the notional value of property increase, then ‘subtract’ the CAVAT value calc of the trees which have been removed, I suspect it would return a net devaluation of the property potentially negating the case for proceeds of crime recovery action...?

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6911341/Millionaire-businessman-67-chopped-11-century-old-protected-trees-ordered-pay-170-000.html

 

 

 

[donnk]

the property owner should sue the council for the lost value in his home due to the councils dictat that he must keep certain trees on his own land.