potential trees

[Sylvia]

Tree definition row moves to Court of Appeal | Planning Resource

 

"The landowners have now renewed their challenge to the order requiring them to replant more than 1,200 trees on the land to replace trees that they are accused of destroying.

 

They claim that they didn’t destroy anything that could legally be classed as a tree.

 

The question for the Appeal Court to decide is whether in the eyes of the law "potential trees", seedlings or even sprouting acorns should be regarded as "trees".

 

The issue is seen as a major one, which could have wide implications in respect of the local authorities’ tree protection powers throughout the country.

 

The High Court had rejected Distinctive's claims that the inspector had wrongly taken into account "potential trees" in reaching his decision.

 

In his decision, however, the High Court judge said the inspector's handling of issues relating to saplings and trees had been "impeccable", and that the challenge to it was "untenable"."

[daltontrees]

A simultaneously interesting yet tiresome debate. Is there not the development potential for 3 large villas at stake, otherwise the case would have been dropped?

 

In the High Court counsel for the developer "accepted that there is not a rigid distinction between a seedling and a sapling. They form part of the continuing development of a specimen. Any distinction between the two would be a matter of degree and judgment." And it was shown that the developer had not challenged the lumping together of seedlings/saplings, or at least the Inspector accepted that the distinction between seedlings and saplings had not hitherto been disputed by the developer and that he had no need to examine it. But right at the end of the spectrum the Council had also tagged on "or other potential trees". Does this mean that because they only have potential to become trees they couldn't have been at the time trees per se? And if so does the context suggest that the seedlings/saplings were (and it would seem a highly retrospective argument that might be debarred) also therefore not trees at the time?

 

Oh to be a lawyer, not to enjoy any greater understanding of all this but to anticipate substantial fees for kicking a dictionary around a courtroom for a few days and to be paid regardless of the outcome!

[TGB]

Will the game of 'Conkers' be outlawed in future? After all, the game's aim, is the destruction of a potential tree/s. Could the average Joe/Jo be prosecuted for eating walnuts or brazil nuts? I suppose councils and land owners could be forced to leave fallen leaves where they lay, just incase they disturb viable seeds.

[Haironyourchest]

Irish law has this one nailed - one of the few instances where it is actually clearer and better drafted the the English equivelent. Anything under ten years old you can fell with impunity.

[daltontrees]

 

And I can only just imagine the arguments as to whether or not a particular tree was 9 or 11 years old.

 

Ed

 

Easy, cut it down and count the rings!

[Haironyourchest]

Then what a good thing English law is different. One element of woodland TPO's is to ensure the continuity of the woodland. Removing every tree that would contribute to the next generation, and the one after, and so on, would effectively destroy the woodland.

 

And I can only just imagine the arguments as to whether or not a particular tree was 9 or 11 years old.

 

Ed

 

 

I kind of, sort of agree with you there Ed. Im sure there are certain areas of forests that are protected here as well, but in general the rural Irish are not great tree enthusiasts - at least not in the south west anyway - attitudes may well be different up the country.

 

Trees grow like mad here and the timber quality isn't great, we don't really have a managed forestry system in place at a national level, and commercial timber is pretty much just plant spruce, wait 20 years, clear fell, plant again. There may be private folks who do manage their stuff properly but I don't know of any.

 

Bearing in mind we also have a MUCH lower population density than England, trees seem to be viewed as more of a nuisance than anything. Turn your back for a decade and your property will be a jungle of sallies, rhododendron and birch - seen it happen.

 

Re. counting the stump rings - thats what diggers are for! There's a standard €84.65 fine per tree (assuming the very remote chance that someone will care enough to report, and the equally remote chance that prosecution will be enforced). Was a farmer locally who knocked a whole wee wood of oak, and was done for it, cost him dear, but the trees were in a particularly picturesque area.

 

Any tree within 30 meters of a dwelling is automatically exempt anyway, is that the same in the UK?

[Jon Heuch]

Then what a good thing English law is different. One element of woodland TPO's is to ensure the continuity of the woodland. Removing every tree that would contribute to the next generation, and the one after, and so on, would effectively destroy the woodland.

 

Difficulty with this is that a woodland TPO, whilst protecting woodland, only does so by preventing a variety of acts one of which is damaging trees. There are all sorts of things that form an integral part of a woodland that aren't protected by the TPO. Whether the lack of protection is important or not will depend on a case by case basis. So the TPO doesn't protect the wildlife (insects, squirrels, jays) that might assist in the pollination and distribution of seed. It doesn't protect the soil, it doesn't protect the fungi (mycorrhizal or otherwise) and it doesn't protect shrubs and herbs. So a woodland TPO protects the trees of the woodland, not the whole woodland. The argument that a woodland TPO is there to protect the woodland so the word "tree" must cover the complete life cycle of future trees is just weak, at best. If someone were to collect all seed from a woodland, preventing germination it would not be illegal...but it would be damaging to the long term growth of the woodland.

[Jon Heuch]

Irish law has this one nailed - one of the few instances where it is actually clearer and better drafted the the English equivelent. Anything under ten years old you can fell with impunity.

 

Can you give me details of which law this is?

 

Thanks

[Haironyourchest]

Legal Requirements for Tree Felling

The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine advise that, under Section 37 of the Forestry Act, 1946, it is illegal to uproot any tree over ten years old or to cut down any tree of any age (including trees which form part of a hedgerow), unless a Felling Notice has been lodged at the Garda Station nearest to the trees at least 21 days before felling commences.

A Felling Notice may be obtained from any Garda Station or directly from the Felling Section of the Forest Service of the Department. A copy can also be obtained on the Department's website.

The requirement for a felling licence for the uprooting or cutting down of trees does not apply where:

a) The tree in question is a hazel, apple, plum, damson, pear, or cherry tree grown for the value of its fruit or any ozier;

b) The tree in question is less than 100 feet from a dwelling other than a wall or temporary structure;

c) The tree in question is standing in a County or other Borough or an urban district (that is, within the boundaries of a town council, or city council area).

Other exceptions apply in the case of local authority road construction, road safety and electricity supply operations.

Penalties for illegal felling can be severe, ranging from fines of up to a maximum of €63.49 per tree to imprisonment for up to 2 years. In addition to any fine, which may be imposed by the Court, the Minister may, by Order, require the person convicted to replant.

For further information, please contact Felling Section, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Johnstown Castle, Wexford. Tel: (053) 9170371/ 9170338/ 9165534/ 9170349.

 

 

https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/forestservice/treefelling/legalrequirementsfortreefelling/

 

 

 

I can dig up the Forestry Act 1946 if you like, but It's pretty well summarised here. But in practice nobody ever lodges a felling notice. Could be wrong, but never heard of it being

done!

[Haironyourchest]

So I guess the loophole is, for those with a big digger or tirfor, that while it appears to be illegal to (without the benefit of the felling licence, which obviously would simplify the whole thing) "Cut down any tree of any age" it is not illegal to "Uproot" a tree which is under ten years old. Uproot and move the evidence then would seem to cover it. The prosecution would have to convince the judge that the trees had been over ten years old. Reasonable doubt, wouldn't wash, unless they had good evidence, photos, witnesses etc. If one wanted to bother.......