Another TPO result for Poole BC

[Mark Bolam]

To be fair, he knew the crack when he built his house too close to trees that had been there for 100 years.

It's hardly a tiny plot is it?

 

He's an idiot.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

25 minutes ago, Mark Bolam said:

To be fair, he knew the crack when he built his house too close to trees that had been there for 100 years.

It's hardly a tiny plot is it?

 

He's an idiot.

Rare I’d disagree with you Mr B...

 

But....

 

I bet he’s no idiot, sharp as a tack I’d guess. - scrap man, he’ll have been duckin & diving all his life. 

 

 

[Mark Bolam]

He’s an idiot.

 

If he’d done it at night he’d have got away with it.

[tree-fancier123]

What about instead of a fine, forcing him to foot the cost of replanting with biggest trees possible? Apparently the financier JP Morgan paid his men to move 80 foot trees on his plot, something about blocking his neighbours light or view after a dispute iirc

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

3 hours ago, Mark Bolam said:

He’s an idiot.

 

If he’d done it at night he’d have got away with it.

I bow to your greater deviousness and retract my previous statement!

 

Pride was his crime then - too brash to be a sneaky bastard ?

[Mark Bolam]

Tbh Kev, I can understand blanket TPO’s on development sites, but I think they should be subject to review after development is complete.

 

It doesn’t look like those trees were particularly visible to anyone else apart from people with drones, and they were his trees. A point I think Mick was getting at earlier.

 

He’s still a knacker, mind.

[Thesnarlingbadger]

So he has basically lost out on 32.5k on his 1.4mil house what a poor bastard. I bet he can’t believe his luck. I’m sure he’s more pissed with the fact he spent time getting the trees down with his super awesome felling cuts.

[openspaceman]

9 minutes ago, Mark Bolam said:

It doesn’t look like those trees were particularly visible to anyone else apart

This is what I often wonder about TPOs, how many people have to be able to enjoy seeing them before it becomes a public amenity in need of protection?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

1 hour ago, openspaceman said:

This is what I often wonder about TPOs, how many people have to be able to enjoy seeing them before it becomes a public amenity in need of protection?

That takes us back to a thread from a fair way back which questioned the validity, appropriateness and measurement of 'public visual amenity' (which can often be interpreted as the blanket / catch all / easy option for refusal of TPO applications - who is this person that derives great pleasure from a tree that someone else has to pay to maintain?  I've had examples where a group of neighbours can be shown to be suffering tangible degradation (not just leaves in the gutter) of their freedom to enjoy their liberty and recreation but some elusive, unnamed, unmeasurable notional public visual amenity is presented as a justification for prolonged suffering of a quantifiable group.)

 

And it doesn't help (actually it does when apparent contradictions can be cited) when it seems that the rules can be 'bent' to satisfy the prevailing circumstances.

 

It's possible (if I've found the right thread) that the answer to your question lies in this thread:

 

I'm not absolutely certain it's the right thread I'm thinking of because it goes rapidly from the original question into 20 pages of pro and anti EU rantings (now there's a thing!! ) before Jules brings it back onto track at page 6.  It was quite funny re-reading some of the posts up to that point and comparing with current EU debate topics though! 

 

I'm not sure it's the thread I'm thinking of so I'll look again.  There was a really good thread about 'amenity worth', I'll see if I can find it....

 

 

 

  

Edited April 12, 2019 by kevinjohnsonmbe

[openspaceman]

4 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

That takes us back to a thread from a fair way back which questioned the validity, appropriateness and measurement of 'public visual amenity'

 

I was thinking more in terms of  how many neighbours overlooking the tree would be needed to make it a " public amenity" if it weren't very visible from a public highway.

 

...and if they didn't object to the tree being removed?