Tpo area

[jjll]

Thanks all for the replies and details I should be looking at.

I will contact the TO first to see If they have any more specifics on this matter.

 

Cheers

[daltontrees]

The unlimited had been satisfactorily addressed

 

Clearly I didn't agree at the time. Depends whose satisfaction is being measured I suppose. Anyway, the OP didn't ask about any of this.

 

Btw, the legislation uses the words 'standard scale' rather than tariff. The word 'tariff' only appears in the Magistrate Courts Sentencing Guidelines as a cross-reference to the Criminal Injuries Authority.

[Eddy_t]

£20,000 actually. I'd agree with all the others who advised speak to the tree officer.

 

 

 

Ed

 

 

Ok, I must have been misinformed on the fine then, or maybe my local TO isn't as expensive

[Another Karl Williams]

Hi.

You don't need to prove the tree wasn't there when the order was made. If the 1st schedule/schedule of trees list the species like you said and this trees species is not on that list then it is not covered by the tpo.

[Gary Prentice]

Hi.

You don't need to prove the tree wasn't there when the order was made. If the 1st schedule/schedule of trees list the species like you said and this trees species is not on that list then it is not covered by the tpo.

 

I'd agree, in that it sounds like a group order rather than an 'area' order. (Everything within the boundaries marked on a plan)

 

In my experience area orders don't usually identify species. I'd go to the planning and read the actual schedule. Oh and check that it was actually confirmed.

[daltontrees]

There is a problem here. Everyone seems to be assuming that the OP's reference initially that "an area is covered by a tpo" means it's an Area Order. Until we know if that is indeed the case, we are wasting his and our time.

 

Also, the TPO seems to have been made under the 1967 Regulations, which have been revoked and then their replacement (the 1999 Regs) have been revoked. But the Regulations even the old ones still live on and are in force for Orders made under them and not re-made under later versions. Anyone out there confident in saying what distinction the Model Order in the Schedule to the 1967 Order made between areas, groups, woodlands or individual trees? I can't even find the 1967 Regs.

 

So the question really is what the largely revoked Regulations say about an unknown TPO and a tree that either wasn't there, was overlooked, wrongly described or was too small to be recorded in 1977. Good luck with that. I continue to advise a precautionary approach.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

As mentioned elsewhere, on indicment to the Crown Court the fine is unlimited. The case I think Chris is refering to was in the Crown Court. The judge was not impressed with either the defendent or the person who felled the tree, and if I remember correctly along with the fine the headline figure included a proceeds of crime order and the Councils costs.

Fine £70,000 for perpatrator, £2,500 for tree feller

Proceeds of crime £50,000

Councils costs £17,500

 

EdwardC

 

That was a good one! From memory, wasn't the 'proceeds of crime' element deemed to have been the notional increase in value to the property (gaining a sea view) on removal of the tree?? That'll learn 'em!

[Gary Prentice]

Tree loss led to more off road parking, which allowed change of use to student accommodation which increased the value of the property. IIRC.

 

Turned out to be a very expensive yew tree.

[daltontrees]

I think Chris@eden was referring to Regina v Davey in Poole. It wqas a Maritime Pine blocking the owner's view of the harbour, so he got it cut down. This enhanced the value of the property by £50k. This was added to the punishment and expenses and I think the guilty party paid £150k in all.

 

The one with teh yew and the extra parking was covered on Arbtalk and in the press but I haven't seen a written judgement.

[Chris at eden]

I think Chris@eden was referring to Regina v Davey in Poole. It wqas a Maritime Pine blocking the owner's view of the harbour, so he got it cut down. This enhanced the value of the property by £50k. This was added to the punishment and expenses and I think the guilty party paid £150k in all.

 

The one with teh yew and the extra parking was covered on Arbtalk and in the press but I haven't seen a written judgement.

 

Spot on Jules,

 

I did PD arb with the TO in Poole and that was pretty muc what he told me.