Man fells neighbour's TPO tree for a better view

[HCR]

This is a case that is made to send out the message that its not acceptable to flout the law. It's in perspective for the value of the property and the wealth of the owner. The usual fine would not have made the news, but this is telling everyone everywhere that no matter how much money you have, you cannot beat the laws of the land. It's not about the value of the tree, the tree species, or the amenity value, it's about adherence and respect for planning law.

 

:thumbup:

[felixthelogchopper]

I hope that replanting was included in the sentence.

[18 stoner]

Sure has made a lovely view now though:thumbup:

[felixthelogchopper]

Sure has made a lovely view now though:thumbup:

 

Bad man!

[GardenKit]

I hope that replanting was included in the sentence.

With a double row of 8ft leylandii all round his garden!

[treequip]

I hope that replanting was included in the sentence.

 

 

Its didficult to see how the courts could order someone to work (plant a tree) on someone elses land when they had just fined him for working (felling a tree) on the same land.

 

 

Not the remit of the courts but the LA can issue a Tree Replacement Order (TRO). I dont think they can enforce it against the perpetrator but certainly the tree owner.

 

Clearly the tree owner is now free to recover costs of the removal and any replacement tree. You can get some pretty hefty (expensive) trees.

[Andy Collins]

I wonder if he had previously applied to remove the tree, to improve his vista. Done correctly, he may have been allowed to fell the tree anyway. I have worked at several places where the view has been returned to that of the 19th Century, or earlier, depending on property, and removed quite substantial "old" trees. Is not about the tree as I said, but the knock on deterrent effect of such a publicised fine.

I also wonder if the neighbour who owned the tree was approached, but maybe couldn't afford the removal, or just didn't care, and said it was up to them if they wanted it out, just get rid. Ive heard of this happening before.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Andy Collins

[felixthelogchopper]

Its didficult to see how the courts could order someone to work (plant a tree) on someone elses land when they had just fined him for working (felling a tree) on the same land.

 

 

Not the remit of the courts but the LA can issue a Tree Replacement Order (TRO). I dont think they can enforce it against the perpetrator but certainly the tree owner.

 

Clearly the tree owner is now free to recover costs of the removal and any replacement tree. You can get some pretty hefty (expensive) trees.

 

Surely it should form part of the restitution package for the Criminal Damage element of the offence?

[treequip]

I wonder if he had previously applied to remove the tree, to improve his vista. Done correctly, he may have been allowed to fell the tree anyway. I have worked at several places where the view has been returned to that of the 19th Century, or earlier, depending on property, and removed quite substantial "old" trees. Is not about the tree as I said, but the knock on deterrent effect of such a publicised fine.

I also wonder if the neighbour who owned the tree was approached, but maybe couldn't afford the removal, or just didn't care, and said it was up to them if they wanted it out, just get rid. Ive heard of this happening before.

 

If he had jumped through the hoops he may have got consent under the TPO but allowed to fell would come down to the tree owner. Assuming the consent in place I wonder how much of the fine it would have taken to get the owners consent

[treequip]

Surely it should form part of the restitution package for the Criminal Damage element of the offence?

 

You would think so but unless the tree owner spoke up I can see the prosecution overlooking it.