TPO trees and Livestock

[Nick Harrison]

I have had to unfortunately ask for the previous thread to be removed due to some potential issues going on in the back ground with this case, sorry to those who put up some useful and worthwhile opinions. Apparently the mods weren't able to simply delete specific posts so the lot had to go. there was a very relevant link to a previous similar situation in Bradford in 2007, so Arb Culture, if you're happy to, could you re-post that please?

 

I'd still like to continue the discussion but I'll need to be careful what details I include for now.

 

As a brief recap:

 

A land owner has recently introduced livestock onto their land where TPO trees sit. A letter has been sent informing the owner of the potential repercussions of damage that may occur to the protected trees unless adequate protection is installed.

 

The previous thread had seemed to centre on whether or not a council would be successful or just in prosecuting an individual for damaging TPO trees with livestock on their own land.

 

My feeling is that once an owner has been made aware of the potential damage that may be caused, and they fail to protect the trees, then they should be open to either enforcement of some type or even prosecution. There are obviously many variables with this but I don't want to be too specific at the moment. As far as I know the land was not previously used for agricultural purposes and the livestock are a recent introduction, so it's necessarily a commercial decision to introduce animals onto the land.

[oslac]

If I was coming from this from the point of view of the Tree Officer, I think I would be very cautious.

 

If you are hoping to stop an offence from being committed, you may need to write a very gentle letter to the land owner letting them know that there are protected trees in the field and that livestock may damage those trees and if the damage is proven to be willful and that the damage is so great that the tree may be destroyed, a prosecution may be taken out. You may then want to set out how the trees can be protected from the livestock. Your protection measures had better be pretty good because if they don't work, you will be blamed for the damage to the tree.

 

One hopes the landowner gets the point and does what is best for the trees but If a land owner came to me and said that in his opinion, he has received this threatening letter from the council when he hasn't even committed an offence and never was going to gov, I would say to the landowner, in much more professional language than I am using here, to go and tell the council where to stick it.

 

I go back to my previous point (before the thread was taken down), a landowner can do what he likes on his land until such time that he can't or in other words until such time that he has broken the law or becomes a nuisance or some other such legal constraint. So the point here is that, has the land owner committed an offence or are you just acting like his big brother and pointing out that he should err on the side caution less the local rozzer come knocking at his door.

 

Its a minefield but I would think I would have more chance in getting him off than I would have in winning a prosecution case.

 

Saying that, the law is the law and who knows what a magistrate will come up with and as far as I know, the land owner may have trained his goats to systematically strip the bark from every tree in the paddock and as such, its an open and shut case . . . providing you can call the goat to the witness stand.

[arb culture]

I have had to unfortunately ask for the previous thread to be removed due to some potential issues going on in the back ground with this case, sorry to those who put up some useful and worthwhile opinions. Apparently the mods weren't able to simply delete specific posts so the lot had to go. there was a very relevant link to a previous similar situation in Bradford in 2007, so Arb Culture, if you're happy to, could you re-post that please?

 

I'd still like to continue the discussion but I'll need to be careful what details I include for now.

 

As a brief recap:

 

A land owner has recently introduced livestock onto their land where TPO trees sit. A letter has been sent informing the owner of the potential repercussions of damage that may occur to the protected trees unless adequate protection is installed.

 

The previous thread had seemed to centre on whether or not a council would be successful or just in prosecuting an individual for damaging TPO trees with livestock on their own land.

 

My feeling is that once an owner has been made aware of the potential damage that may be caused, and they fail to protect the trees, then they should be open to either enforcement of some type or even prosecution. There are obviously many variables with this but I don't want to be too specific at the moment. As far as I know the land was not previously used for agricultural purposes and the livestock are a recent introduction, so it's necessarily a commercial decision to introduce animals onto the land.

 

Hi Nick,

 

No problem, here you go:

Pigs in the dock accused of destroying protected trees | Daily Mail Online

 

I would like to repeat that the article does not present all the facts. The tree officers at Bradford are very knowledgeable and capable people.

 

For what it's worth, I agree with you when you say, "that once an owner has been made aware of the potential damage that may be caused, and they fail to protect the trees, then they should be open to either enforcement of some type or even prosecution."

 

This is clearly supported by the word 'permits' in; (2) A prohibition imposed on a person may (in particular) relate to things whose doing the person causes or permits (as well as to things the person does).

 

Copied from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/202C

[Nick Harrison]

The view on this sort of thing is clearly subjective. I know from the outside it can sometimes seem that the LA is being big brotherish or even bullying but that's not been my experience from the other side after working at 3 LAs.

 

When a person decides to purchase land that has protected trees on them, they should be made fully aware of what that entails. Perhaps it should be a legal prerequisite as part of a conveyancing procedure?

 

If a TPO is slapped on after someone has moved in or purchased then I would certainly sympathise if the council started denying certain activities on their property.

 

I personally don't feel it is right that someone should expect a LA to allow the wilful destruction or damage of protected trees just because it is their land, and then feel aggrieved or bullied when the local TO sends a formal letter explaining the legal situation.

 

I know others disagree and I suppose ultimately it'll come down to what the courts think, and that's another debate. I just heard today from a colleague, at another LA, who has just been to a magistrates court to hear what should have been an open and shut case in favour of the LA. As it turns out, the magistrate saw it completely the other way and a perfectly healthy protected tree has been taken down with no punishment for the perpetrator. Just goes to show there's no clear answer when it comes to the law.

 

Thanks for reposting the article arb culture

[oslac]

Hi Nick,

 

No problem, here you go:

Pigs in the dock accused of destroying protected trees | Daily Mail Online

 

I would like to repeat that the article does not present all the facts. The tree officers at Bradford are very knowledgeable and capable people.

 

For what it's worth, I agree with you when you say, "that once an owner has been made aware of the potential damage that may be caused, and they fail to protect the trees, then they should be open to either enforcement of some type or even prosecution."

 

This is clearly supported by the word 'permits' in; (2) A prohibition imposed on a person may (in particular) relate to things whose doing the person causes or permits (as well as to things the person does).

 

Copied from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/202C

 

Except that its not "here you go" because the council lost the case and the farmer was innocent and awarded costs.

 

Why would you carry out enforcement for something that you think may happen. Surely enforcement relates to the failing of some planning requirement. Enforcement can only be carried out when something is not done in accordance with a planning approval. In this case, there is no planning issue to enforce but there may have been a criminal offence taken place, in which case the council may choose to prosecute or perhaps caution. My view would be to go for the caution and save us all £10K.

[oslac]

The view on this sort of thing is clearly subjective. I know from the outside it can sometimes seem that the LA is being big brotherish or even bullying but that's not been my experience from the other side after working at 3 LAs.

 

When a person decides to purchase land that has protected trees on them, they should be made fully aware of what that entails. Perhaps it should be a legal prerequisite as part of a conveyancing procedure?

 

If a TPO is slapped on after someone has moved in or purchased then I would certainly sympathise if the council started denying certain activities on their property.

 

I personally don't feel it is right that someone should expect a LA to allow the wilful destruction or damage of protected trees just because it is their land, and then feel aggrieved or bullied when the local TO sends a formal letter explaining the legal situation.

 

I know others disagree and I suppose ultimately it'll come down to what the courts think, and that's another debate. I just heard today from a colleague, at another LA, who has just been to a magistrates court to hear what should have been an open and shut case in favour of the LA. As it turns out, the magistrate saw it completely the other way and a perfectly healthy protected tree has been taken down with no punishment for the perpetrator. Just goes to show there's no clear answer when it comes to the law.

 

Thanks for reposting the article arb culture

 

Except that emotion has no place in law. Stick to the facts and provide suitable evidence which will be believed by the court.

 

When the law is changed and it becomes legal to prosecute on the grounds that the LA think an offence may be committed, that is the day to shut up shop and hoist the red flag . . . kafkaesque or what.

[arb culture]

Except that its not "here you go" because the council lost the case and the farmer was innocent and awarded costs.

 

Why would you carry out enforcement for something that you think may happen. Surely enforcement relates to the failing of some planning requirement. Enforcement can only be carried out when something is not done in accordance with a planning approval. In this case, there is no planning issue to enforce but there may have been a criminal offence taken place, in which case the council may choose to prosecute or perhaps caution. My view would be to go for the caution and save us all £10K.

 

Eh? Nick asked me to re-post a link, so I did, so yes it was 'here you go', as in, "here you go, here's the link".

 

I wouldn't carry out enforcement - I'm no longer a tree officer, so that's not my role.

[arb culture]

Except that emotion has no place in law. Stick to the facts and provide suitable evidence which will be believed by the court.

 

When the law is changed and it becomes legal to prosecute on the grounds that the LA think an offence may be committed, that is the day to shut up shop and hoist the red flag . . . kafkaesque or what.

 

Who has suggested that an LA should prosecute on the grounds "that the LA think an offence may be committed?" I missed that bit.

[oslac]

Eh? Nick asked me to re-post a link, so I did, so yes it was 'here you go', as in, "here you go, here's the link".

 

I wouldn't carry out enforcement - I'm no longer a tree officer, so that's not my role.

 

Apologies for getting the wrong end of the stick. Your "Here you go" was interpreted as a justification for the link rather than the posting of the link.

[arb culture]

Apologies for getting the wrong end of the stick. Your "Here you go" was interpreted as a justification for the link rather than the posting of the link.

 

Ah, no worries. I was a bit confused there for a while.