Council tries to press charges for ring-barking, gets landed with £100k fine

[treequip]

As far as I am concerned ring barking should hold the same penalty as removing a TPO tree .

 

 

It does. It comes under actions likely to destroy

[aspenarb]

This case is a bit different, from what I gather from reading the post there were no TPO`s on the site and there was a bit of a race going on to slap the orders on. I do agree that they should have just got on and felled the trees while they had the chance. Its not all gloom and doom with these developers and clearance work. When these houses get built there will be more going on in the way of flowers, shrubs, trees and habitat than any chemically enhanced farmers field . People in the main love their gardens and stock them well , time will heal

 

Bob

[nepia]

time will heal :)Bob

 

It won't do much for the centuries old oaks that were the first to suffer!

[treequip]

This case is a bit different, from what I gather from reading the post there were no TPO`s on the site and there was a bit of a race going on to slap the orders on. I do agree that they should have just got on and felled the trees while they had the chance. Its not all gloom and doom with these developers and clearance work. When these houses get built there will be more going on in the way of flowers, shrubs, trees and habitat than any chemically enhanced farmers field . People in the main love their gardens and stock them well , time will heal

 

Bob

 

Well I am not so sure about that.

 

I will defend the developers rights to do as he wishes with his land but the developer will maximise the return on the land by packing as many units on there as planning will allow.

 

The gardens probably wont be anything like big enough to compensate the environment for the loss of mature trees.

 

Its a sad fact that the environment has to take second place to houses but there it is.

[aspenarb]

Well I am not so sure about that.

 

I will defend the developers rights to do as he wishes with his land but the developer will maximise the return on the land by packing as many units on there as planning will allow.

 

The gardens probably wont be anything like big enough to compensate the environment for the loss of mature trees.

 

Its a sad fact that the environment has to take second place to houses but there it is.

 

On the same token the only reason these trees came out in the first place is a direct result of the councils planning policies. If the open spaces were developed instead of trying to cram god knows how many houses onto a postage stamp these cases would be history. Its the councils that draw up the boundaries making it very expensive and virtually impossible to meet the house building targets set out. With most councils,parish councils and all the nimby`s that can put the boot in on a development "the answer is always no now what is the question".Take a step back and look at the housing stocks of this country and you will notice that all the decent properties built to date were built prior to the planning acts, they all happen to have big gardens with plenty of recreational space and plenty of vegetation.As said before a lot more goes on in a decent sized garden than any farmers field. So unless we all stop producing children houses will need to be built and all this malarkey will carry on.

 

Bob

Edited April 26, 2014 by aspenarb

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

This case is a bit different, from what I gather from reading the post there were no TPO`s on the site and there was a bit of a race going on to slap the orders on. I do agree that they should have just got on and felled the trees while they had the chance. Its not all gloom and doom with these developers and clearance work. When these houses get built there will be more going on in the way of flowers, shrubs, trees and habitat than any chemically enhanced farmers field . People in the main love their gardens and stock them well , time will heal

 

Bob

 

 

You make a really good point there about potential future ecological diversity & habitat.

 

It's a pity we have such a confrontational / gladiatorial / Machiavellian relationship between developers and LA TOs?

 

Got me thinking (and a re-read of Daltontrees' thread back in Jan - Valuation of Amenity Trees)

 

The "value" "worth" "amenity" of the tree depends on the perspective of the person making the case for retention or removal.

 

Maybe, only from what I can understand from the thread, this is an example where LA might have had a different view from the potential developer and as a result, depending upon how you view the practice, the developer choose to take a drastic - but not illegal - action to short circuit the potential for bureaucratic interference.

 

Maybe a look at the potential for long term, whole site or area improvements rather than banging in a TPO would have been of greater benefit to "community amenity."

 

As it seems now, the tree(s) are gone and there's no statutory requirement (a planning condition) for compensating replanting or landscaping.

 

Seems like a loss for diversity, a win for development company and the LA plodding along with business as usual.

 

That's just the impression I get from reading the thread, I don't know the site, developer, LA or area, just my thoughts.

[nepia]

On the same token the only reason these trees came out in the first place is a direct result of the councils planning policies. If the open spaces were developed instead of trying to cram god knows how many houses onto a postage stamp these cases would be history. Its the councils that draw up the boundaries making it very expensive and virtually impossible to meet the house building targets set out. With most councils,parish councils and all the nimby`s that can put the boot in on a development "the answer is always no now what is the question".Take a step back and look at the housing stocks of this country and you will notice that all the decent properties built to date were built prior to the planning acts, they all happen to have big gardens with plenty of recreational space and plenty of vegetation.As said before a lot more goes on in a decent sized garden than any farmers field. So unless we all stop producing children houses will need to be built and all this malarkey will carry on.

 

Bob

 

 

That's an interesting post; I get the thinking behind it but the sheer number of houses we apparently need - so we are told by all those with vested interests of course - makes the principle unworkable I think. But I like the thinking.

 

One aspect of this particular case (that non-locals were not to know, hence I intend no criticism) is that the District Council had allocated planning well in excess of government dictat before this one blew up. So understandably something the very angry locals are saying is 'it's not even the case that this land was needed for development; it could have been left untouched for the residents to enjoy'.

The developer is not well liked by anyone I've spoken to!

[omahaalex]

the developers spent 75K on legal expenses, the council 25k. no wonder they lost

[Tim Stobart Tree Surgery]

I wasnae gonna comment, but hey, Firstly, GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

 

After that, no bugger here has done any thing wrong, yes they should've just got the job done rather than ring barking, but I can understand (if not justify, or agree with) them doing it (as Arbs, as developers it makes sense). As for the council, if they are in such a situation then it simply makes the case for creating a 'conservation area', whereby any tree has to be considered for a TPO before any work is completed on it. Yes, I believe the fines are less/will be accepted development costs, but that's the courts problem, not the process (and the courts should address this with larger fines), but to get a working process then I believe that all urban area's should have this basic status, to stop such practices.

 

As I say no wrong doers, just loopholes in the system that need blocking. I used to work in Sussex ( and I kid you not got asked "could you do the job on a Sunday?" more than once), I really don't miss it, I now love my little island (Bute) even with it's conservation area. At least here, you know a wrong 'un when you're dealing with them. Down south it's every man for himself. Good luck down there!

[treequip]

the developers spent 75K on legal expenses, the council 25k. no wonder they lost

 

Ha ha ha

 

Its not about how much you spend, its whether you are guilty I the eyes of the law.

 

The LA could have blown their entire annual budget on that case and the outcome would have still been the same.

 

It shows a degree of financial wisdom that they didn't spend any more