recent prosecution

[herne]

£3,000 court bill for woman who damaged protected tree in her garden Express & Star

 

Lichfield woman fined £2,970 for chopping her OWN tree | Lichfield Mercury

[oslac]

Interesting this and good to see offences for carrying out unapproved works on a TPO tree taken to court.

 

How fair it is, may be a different issue. The owner was a pensioner and hit with £3K of fines when I see contractors doing far worse and getting away with it.

 

The charge seems to be carrying out unapproved works to a TPO tree which is likely to destroy it.

 

Proving this seems to be something that could probably have been challenged in court. Does the law require the tree to die or just no longer look like a tree. If the tree was a lime, could the same charge be brought as the regenerative ability of lime trees are renowned. What if, the tree survives and regenerates, do you think the pensioner could get her money back and the criminal record removed?

[hamdogg]

So who actually carried out the work? A contractor on her behalf? How does that work then, does the contractor get away with it?

[eggsarascal]

What's a victims surcharge!?, 'nother way of getting 'tut' off folk?

[bluebedouin]

What is the victim surcharge?

[eggsarascal]

What is the victim surcharge?

 

So, I could get six months 'up me ribs' and pay eighty quid for the pleasure, sounds like a good reason to keep on the straight and narrow.

[Chris at eden]

Interesting this and good to see offences for carrying out unapproved works on a TPO tree taken to court.

 

How fair it is, may be a different issue. The owner was a pensioner and hit with £3K of fines when I see contractors doing far worse and getting away with it.

 

The charge seems to be carrying out unapproved works to a TPO tree which is likely to destroy it.

 

Proving this seems to be something that could probably have been challenged in court. Does the law require the tree to die or just no longer look like a tree. If the tree was a lime, could the same charge be brought as the regenerative ability of lime trees are renowned. What if, the tree survives and regenerates, do you think the pensioner could get her money back and the criminal record removed?

 

 

The tree doesn't have to be killed or obliterated, it simply has to be destroyed to such a point that it no longer provides the same visual amenity. I doubt you would get too far suggesting it could regenerate as it is still destroyed at that point in time or at least its visual amenity is.

[Chris at eden]

So who actually carried out the work? A contractor on her behalf? How does that work then, does the contractor get away with it?

 

No, not necessarily. The contractor should be investigated also, otherwise the council could be done for abuse of process. Who would be prosecuted ultimately is recommended by the legal department at the council and then signed off by the head of planning or whoever oversees TPOs.

[eggsarascal]

I agree.

 

What's fairness got to do with anything. We are all equal in the eyes of the law. Judging by one of the pictures it was a tree surgeon wot dun it. They should have been prosecuted too if it was appropriate.

 

Destruction is not just about cutting a tree down. It can include topping a nice tree to a stump. That it will send out a stack of epicormics doesn't make it a nice tree again. It makes it a stump with a stack of epicormics growing out of it.

 

If you don't want to get fined, pay a victims surcharge or end up with a criminal record, don't break the law. As for what it is, it's a penalty applied over and above the fine to compensate the victims of the crime.

 

EdC

 

Get you, with your holier than thou approach. Let's hope you never get caught speeding or riding your pushbike on the pavement.

[oslac]

The tree doesn't have to be killed or obliterated, it simply has to be destroyed to such a point that it no longer provides the same visual amenity. I doubt you would get too far suggesting it could regenerate as it is still destroyed at that point in time or at least its visual amenity is.

 

I see where you are coming from but I am having difficulty with the precision of what you are saying.

 

To be destroyed to a point where it no longer provides the same visual amenity - Does this mean that destruction means the removal of a twig or two twigs or three twigs - how many twigs need to be removed to equate with destruction.

 

Also, where in the law does it say that destruction equates to not providing the same visual amenity.

 

Also also, what about removal of roots and what happens if a large chunk of the RPA was removed but there was no affect on the visual amenity.