10,000 fine for breech of felling licence in magistrate court

[stevelucocq]

Newport company fined £10,000 for felling 200 trees without licence (From South Wales Argus)

 

seems a small price to pay for 1.2ha trees (I guess thats the maximum fine that can be given in the magistrate courts?). Anyhow good to see natural resources wales take this on and well done to all involved. hopefully the person responsible for ordering the work to be carried out will be prosecuted.

[hamdogg]

It's not like he felled 6cubic metre! It was a large amount, and he must of known what he was doing!!

[stevelucocq]

Also it would be interesting what now happens with any future development of the site. Hopefully a tree replacement scheme will be ordered by the courts or can nrw serve such a notice?

[mendiplogs]

Newport company fined £10,000 for felling 200 trees without licence (From South Wales Argus)

 

seems a small price to pay for 1.2ha trees (I guess thats the maximum fine that can be given in the magistrate courts?). Anyhow good to see natural resources wales take this on and well done to all involved. hopefully the person responsible for ordering the work to be carried out will be prosecuted.

 

Hi Steve I'm SORRY SAY BUT WHAT A £10k when the developer can make millions of pounds from this site it a very price to pay in cash term there's to many things like this going and there's small site to not to far from me a load of trees ring Barked deliberately so they could build a large house on the site thanks Jon

[delabodge]

Does anybody know the full facts?

[10 Bears]

SORRY SAY BUT WHAT A £10k when the developer can make millions of pounds from this site

 

I have dealt with developers that have admitted the very same thing. They knew what they were doing - exactly in the same way that some arborists, including several on here who admit they have done the work, recommend site clearances before planning permission is even put in just as in this case.

 

Hopefully a few more prosecutions like this will prevent further destruction of natural resources, for the sake of development greed.

[daltontrees]

Interesting case. The fine is about £90 a cube, and the Act says the fines can be up to twice the value of the trees. Looks like there was no gain that way. And the developer still hasn't been sentenced. There could be another hefty fine. The Commission can order restocking. In theory anyway, this whole thing will not advance the likelihood of planning permission. If anything it might put it in stasis for 10 years.

 

The contractor seems to have been hit on the basis of 'should have known better', even though it wasn't his land and he argued that he assumed the developer had the planning permission exemption.

[Mick Dempsey]

Why is it always "greedy" developers? I have known a few, and they are proud of their visible achievements in putting together the necessary work that provides houses for people. Money comes in handy of course.

I remember in my home village of Rudgwick about 15 years ago there was a petition in the local shop against a new development of 60 or so houses.

I had a look at the signatories and many of them lived in an very similar estate that had been built a year or two earlier.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

A small inconvenience in the grand scheme of things but I think the timber can be embargoed also - so no firewood from that endeavour!

[daltontrees]

The Forestry Commission, and I'm talking England, haven't prosecuted anyone in years. At least not since the law changed to allow them to pursue re-stocking without a prosecution. And pursuing restocking is what they do, at least in England.

 

So well done Natural Resources Wales.

 

As far as I am aware the same legislation applies to Wales as England, but I sit to be corrected.

 

If re-stocking is pursued, and there's no reason why not, the developer won't be able to develop the land for as long as the restocking notice is in force, usually 10 years. Planning permission does not override the re-stocking notice. If it was the developers intention to increase the chances of development, they could have shot themselves in the foot.

 

Ed

 

That's what I meant. I am so pleased that for once I have been more succinct than somebody else. No offence Ed, but it's not like me to be brief.