fines for doing work on tpo trees

[skyhuck]

The offence is working on the tree without consent, once you have committed the offence you can’t make that right by getting consent retrospectively.

 

Assuming the work was to 3998 there is no saying that any works permitted would be to the full extent of the standard, for example a crown reduction might be to BS3998 but not considered appropriate for the protected tree.

 

There are 2 levels of fine under the tariff of offences. Destruction, or actions likely to destroy, carries a maximum of 20K. The LA can also insist on a “suitable” replacement tree, this could see you getting a spanking from one of the outfits with large tree stock.

 

Pruning without consent is a lesser offence carrying a maximum of 2.5K

 

Anyone guilty of TPO contravention will receive a summary conviction that will need to be declared some at places, most immigration paperwork specifically asks about convictions, it won’t stop you getting into a foreign country but it is still a conviction.

 

But are the fines not based on the value of the tree, so if you destroy a tree you are fined the full value, if you have not damaged or devalued the tree on what basis can they fine you????

[Pete Tattam]

We've downloaded the LA's guidance from their website and also Tree Preservation Orders A Guide To The Law & Good Practice (linked from LA website). We keep a hard copy in the van for reference at the time. It's also handy to show punters who pooh pooh the authority or severity of TPOs. Also got a copy of all the surrounding LA applications for TPO/ conservation area works so punters can see you ACTUALLY DO have to make written application for such works. Some seem to think its a load of genitalia just to add to the quote.

[Pete Tattam]

But are the fines not based on the value of the tree, so if you destroy a tree you are fined the full value, if you have not damaged or devalued the tree on what basis can they fine you????

 

Who would decide the value of the tree? Would it be market value as timber or firewood, or amenity value (and how much is that?). Damage is a very subjective issue. What you or I consider damage is different to what a TPO considers damage (or a court for that matter!). My advice would always be play it safe and stick by the (their) rules.

[nick channer]

But are the fines not based on the value of the tree, so if you destroy a tree you are fined the full value, if you have not damaged or devalued the tree on what basis can they fine you????

this was my argument... they could only prove in court that i had pollarded several smallish limes which had been done reguarly before..trimming back hard a big laurel next to a building which was causing damp on wall and cutting down a 8ft high conifer which i cut down so i could get mog and lorry on the site.. as i said no comment to every question relating to other trees that had been felled they couldnt use them in court... and as there was no photographic or witness's to say i'd felled them they couldnt do thing about it... they obviously knew i'd done all the work so gave me everything they could... my solicitor told me to appeal but i knew i'd be getting some or all money back somewhere along the line so didnt want hassle and extra court costs if it failed

[skyhuck]

Who would decide the value of the tree? Would it be market value as timber or firewood, or amenity value (and how much is that?). Damage is a very subjective issue. What you or I consider damage is different to what a TPO considers damage (or a court for that matter!). My advice would always be play it safe and stick by the (their) rules.

 

They have a scale for working out the value, I forget what its called.

[colwoodlandcare]

Ive just had a client that he live in a conservation area and I'm 90% sure most of the Oaks have Tpo's on them. He wanted a price to take an oak down or prune it.

I told him he needed to permission, he replied if it doesn't have anything on it, they might put something on it so i think we should just go ahead with the work, during the day when the nabours are out and as long as i use a hand saw no one will hear.

 

I then mentioned how hefty the fine could be and it soon changed his mind to getting in contact with the council.

 

Otherwise i think ild be walking

[Pedroski]

They have a scale for working out the value, I forget what its called.

 

I think it's the "Value of a tree scale" or something

[treequip]

But are the fines not based on the value of the tree, so if you destroy a tree you are fined the full value, if you have not damaged or devalued the tree on what basis can they fine you????

 

 

Nope the fine is based on your actions to the tree and the level of fine is decided by the court (within the tariff).

 

If your bench is tree hugger biased you are likely to get a higher fine than if they have had problems with trees themselves. They aren’t supposed to allow personals to colour their decisions but they are human.

 

Alarmingly there is provision for the fine to be value accrued, so if the illegal works adds value to the land (read building plot) the fine can be whatever you sell for. In reality the replacement planting prevents the value accruing so this has to the best of my knowledge never been used.

[skyhuck]

this was my argument... they could only prove in court that i had pollarded several smallish limes which had been done reguarly before..trimming back hard a big laurel next to a building which was causing damp on wall and cutting down a 8ft high conifer which i cut down so i could get mog and lorry on the site.. as i said no comment to every question relating to other trees that had been felled they couldnt use them in court... and as there was no photographic or witness's to say i'd felled them they couldnt do thing about it... they obviously knew i'd done all the work so gave me everything they could... my solicitor told me to appeal but i knew i'd be getting some or all money back somewhere along the line so didnt want hassle and extra court costs if it failed

 

IMO, you we well and truly stitched up, the Laurel was a shrub and outside their jurisdiction, and you were only "maintaining" the Limes, so the conifer was your only crime (that they could prove).

 

You should have appealed, IMO.

 

If the Limes were not TPO'd, but only within the CA, I think the fact that they had agreed to them being pollarded without placing a TPO on them makes their case very weak indeed.

[treequip]

Who would decide the value of the tree? Would it be market value as timber or firewood, or amenity value (and how much is that?). Damage is a very subjective issue. What you or I consider damage is different to what a TPO considers damage (or a court for that matter!). My advice would always be play it safe and stick by the (their) rules.

 

The value of the tree is immaterial to the offence or the fine.