recent prosecution

[eggsarascal]

I've been caught speeding more than once, and I take my punishment. I know I'm breaking the law and that's that. The last time the wide nicely surfaced road was clear not another vehicle in sight, weather bright dry and sunny. But the camera doesn't listen to excuses.

 

I did a speed awareness course once and overtaking safely came up. The advice at one time when overtaking was accelerate to pass safely and quickly even if that meant breaking the speed limit, pull in and slow back down to the limit. Now it's don't break the speed limit even if overtaking. Why, because the camera doesn't listen to excuses. Is that safer.

 

I once, very luckily, got away with a ticking off after being pulled by traffic officers on the M1. They said my driving was good, but I was just going too fast. On this occasion due to my 'good' driving I was ticked off, told to slow down, and let go.

 

Less luckily I was once convicted on the basis that the car behind me was doing 44mph in a 30mph zone. As they were following me I too must have been doing 44mph. No I wasn't. The car behind was catching me up as I was turning right and not going very quickly at all.

 

Sometimes you get away with it, sometimes you don't, sometimes you just get shafted. But whenever you are doing wrong you know it and just have to take your medicine when caught. On the other occasions just write it off against all the times you got away with it.

 

Funnily enough I'm off to buy a new bike tonight. I'll make sure I stay off the footpaths.

 

Ed

 

Did you pay a victim surcharge though?

 

I don't mind taking a kicking for something I've done wrong..... I just don't like paying twice, after I've paid twice!

 

How to derail a thread.

[oslac]

I can't remember. I just paid what was asked, got the points and moved on.

 

And there we have a fully compliant member of society . . no trouble to no-one. . .

[Gary Prentice]

I think it's a bit of an odd case. Most of the planning officers and TO's I've ever met would have wanted to pursue the contractor. The owner is elderly, possibly widowed, and not necessarily on the ball with TPO legislation. Whereas the contractor....

 

Although looking at the 'pruning' the 'tree surgeon' is probably not bone fide and now untraceable.

 

The comments section in the first link provide a fair sample of Mr Joe Publics understanding of statutory protection and appreciation of trees in general.

[hamdogg]

I reckon it must be hard to prosecute a contractor anyhow! Unless caught in the act or photos of them doing it! How can they prove anything??

[devon TWiG]

Perhaps the contractor was of the "home on wheels " type ...they are also immune from fly tipping as well ...

[Chris at eden]

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.

 

The below is from the online guidance, its pretty much what the blue book said also.

 

What are the offences and who can be guilty of committing them?

 

Section 210(1) and Section 202C(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provide that anyone who, in contravention of a Tree Preservation Order

•cuts down, uproots or wilfully destroys a tree; or

•tops, lops or wilfully damages a tree in a way that is likely to destroy it; or

•causes or permits such activities

 

is guilty of an offence.

 

Section 210(4) of the Act sets out that it is also an offence for anyone to contravene the provisions of an Order other than those mentioned above. For example, anyone who lops a tree in contravention of an Order, but in a way that the tree is not likely to be destroyed, would be guilty of this offence.

 

For the purposes of the Act, a person does not have to obliterate a tree in order to ‘destroy’ it. It is sufficient for the tree to be rendered useless as an amenity or as something worth preserving.

 

 

That is what is was saying in terms of not providing the same level of amenity. If you removed two twigs it wouldn't destroy the amenity so doubt it would be in the public interest to prosecute, but if you removed the whole canopy it would.

 

If you removed a large section of the RPA the tree at some point decline or die and so there is your impact on visual amenity. If the RPA removal was not damaging then again I doubt it would be in the public interest.

[eggsarascal]

And there we have a fully compliant member of society . . no trouble to no-one. . .

 

A fully compliant member of society wouldn't be facing speeding fines in the first place......... No trouble to no one, I ask ya.

[Chris at eden]

I think it's a bit of an odd case. Most of the planning officers and TO's I've ever met would have wanted to pursue the contractor. The owner is elderly, possibly widowed, and not necessarily on the ball with TPO legislation. Whereas the contractor....

 

Although looking at the 'pruning' the 'tree surgeon' is probably not bone fide and now untraceable.

 

The comments section in the first link provide a fair sample of Mr Joe Publics understanding of statutory protection and appreciation of trees in general.

 

 

If she was elderly and not fully in control of her own mind then that would be a mitigating factor which the courts would consider.

[bumble B]

The below is from the online guidance, its pretty much what the blue book said also.

 

What are the offences and who can be guilty of committing them?

 

Section 210(1) and Section 202C(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provide that anyone who, in contravention of a Tree Preservation Order

•cuts down, uproots or wilfully destroys a tree; or

•tops, lops or wilfully damages a tree in a way that is likely to destroy it; or

•causes or permits such activities

 

is guilty of an offence.

 

Section 210(4) of the Act sets out that it is also an offence for anyone to contravene the provisions of an Order other than those mentioned above. For example, anyone who lops a tree in contravention of an Order, but in a way that the tree is not likely to be destroyed, would be guilty of this offence.

 

For the purposes of the Act, a person does not have to obliterate a tree in order to ‘destroy’ it. It is sufficient for the tree to be rendered useless as an amenity or as something worth preserving.

 

 

That is what is was saying in terms of not providing the same level of amenity. If you removed two twigs it wouldn't destroy the amenity so doubt it would be in the public interest to prosecute, but if you removed the whole canopy it would.

 

If you removed a large section of the RPA the tree at some point decline or die and so there is your impact on visual amenity. If the RPA removal was not damaging then again I doubt it would be in the public interest.

 

I wonder how many landscapers get pulled up for destroying root areas of clients and neighbours protected trees?

[hamdogg]

I wonder how many landscapers get pulled up for destroying root areas of clients and neighbours protected trees?

 

 

Prob not many but my question still stands how do you prove it was the contractor that did the work?