unimog

[b101uk]

Felling Trees is Forestry, Pruning trees is horticulture / arboriculture (Or was According to CIS).

There is definitely a distinction made between agriculture and forestry. 1.5km doesn't apply to Forestry. As you rightly point out I don't live in the UK, so I doesn't effect me. I have ran a mog in the uk for a good few years though. Still at the moment I can run my mog on Green without any limits. Not sure how long that's going to last.

 

CIS is NOTHING to do with the DVLA, VOSA or the HMRC with respect to red diesel or agri vehicles and road use etc, CIS's view/opinion of what is or isn’t Forestry/horticulture/agriculture holds absolutely NO value with regards to motor vehicles and fuel type used on the public highway & beyond.

 

I would also suggest forestry is something significantly more than just “felling a tree/s” and is more what goes on after a tree/s has been felled or even on some cases “Pruned” and why, after all coppicing is just extreme pruning ware the “tree” is still living and will regrow, its still exactly the same tree and can be applied in both a Forestry & horticulture (arb) sense dependent on why it was done and the USE the resulting timber was put to if any.

 

You say “Section 1 was revised in 2008” however statutes & statutory instruments all have to be formatted in a lawful way, therefore “section 1” is always the introduction which deals with definitions of “descriptive words” used in later sections (which are the actual laws), it also list other statutes which have relevance to this statute as well as revocations of statutes that no longer apply or are superseded by this new statute, therefore it would have to be at least a “Section >2” or higher that “was revised in 2008”, also you seam to offer no citation as to actually which statute you are referring that “section” whatever is in that revokes the 1.5km rule for forestry machines that are NOT agricultural, horticultural or forestry tractors operating under the grouping of agricultural motor vehicles (AMV).

Edited April 1, 2011 by b101uk

[treequip]

I think for section 1 we need to read schedule1 of the Hydrocarbon Oils Duty Act

[b101uk]

I think for section 1 we need to read schedule1 of the Hydrocarbon Oils Duty Act

 

schedule1 of HODA (Hydrocarbon Oils Duty Act 1979) is "EXCEPTED VEHICLES" which is the OLD near the same txt as in the much newer HMRC notice 75 - section 8 - EXCEPTED VEHICLES on which it was based as section 1 of HMRC notice 75 says.

 

the debate with regard to if the 1.5km applying to "agri engines" used in forestry as in e.g. self propelled forwarders etc or “Vehicles used between different parts of land” which self propelled forwarders can also fit into but then can carry no load on the road is to do with vehicle licensing (DVLA) and vehicle use under construction and use regulations (VOSA & DVLA) and that NO distinction is made between “agricultural” vs. “forestry” and that the “1.5km limit” OR the “may not carry any load except such as is necessary for its propulsion or for the operation of any machinery built-in or permanently attached to the vehicle” applies equally to BOTH agricultural & forestry uses unless register as e.g. an agricultural tractor.

 

Therefore taxing a mog as anything else “agricultural, horticultural or forestry” other than a agricultural tractor means you are limited to 1.5km but CAN carry load OR that the 1.5km dose not apply but you CANNOT carry load on the road, there is absolutely NO exceptions for forestry vehicles over agricultural or horticultural ones with respect to the limitations of use either with respect to the HMRC, DVLA or VOSA.

Edited April 1, 2011 by b101uk

[Arborjesus]

Fair play, I'm out of date. On re-reading it has been changed. Forestry used to have a far greater radius. I'll check before posting in future.

 

The distinction between Felling for forestry and felling within arboriculture isn't clear. I know I do both activities. I use timber from both activities for both saw log and firewood. The only difference is that for domestic / farm jobs I normally chip branches. Then again I have mulched Ha of land after felling. It's very hard to make a distinction. If we used your definition then felling almost any broad leaf would be pruning (and including the many conifers that produce shoots) and the trees that don't produce shoots would be an act of forestry? Anyhow, if there's no distinction in the eyes of HMCE then I guess there's no point in making it.

 

Thanks for pulling me up, I wouldn't want to be spreading misinformation unchecked.

[ecolojim]

I do wonder if they used the wrong word. forestry isnt really specific enough. Seemingly what we are expected to interpret it as, is Agriculture, Horticulture and SILVICULTURE?

 

then you have a clear definition between the one tree and the many. Saying that arb is not a facet of forestry, outside of the realms of the exemption, isnt quite so cut and dried IMO

[b101uk]

Fair play, I'm out of date. On re-reading it has been changed. Forestry used to have a far greater radius. I'll check before posting in future.

 

In your defence you are probably thinking back to pre 2000 when the VED system had 2 road tax bands for AMV’s, there was Nil duty with similar restriction to now and “sole use” agri/hort/forestry, there was then what was termed “contractors rate” VED which cost £40 (same as a moped at the time) which removed some of the restriction that Nil duty rate VED imposed and was “primarily used” agri/hort/forestry.

 

The distinction between Felling for forestry and felling within arboriculture isn't clear. I know I do both activities.....................

 

I do wonder if they used the wrong word. forestry isnt really specific enough. Seemingly what we are expected to interpret it as, is Agriculture, Horticulture and SILVICULTURE?

 

then you have a clear definition between the one tree and the many. Saying that arb is not a facet of forestry, outside of the realms of the exemption, isnt quite so cut and dried IMO

 

Did I define what forestry was? I merely pointed out it was so much more than merely felling a tree/s or could even be just pruning to coppicing, the important factor is both “why” it was done and/or what happened to the resulting “product/arising” and the paper trail it leaves behind if any etc etc.

[ecolojim]

Did I define what forestry was?

 

Did I say you?

 

Similarly, what I'm getting at is, a single tree in a garden may be grown for timber just as a stand of trees merely for aesthetic value.

Horticulture is exempt and that may be purely in the service of whims and fancy, Amenity horticulture has no useful tangible product yet comes under the Hort umbrella. Why should arb as always draw the short straw?

Edited April 2, 2011 by ecolojim