Jump to content

EdwardC

Member
  • Content Count

    736
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About EdwardC

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. EdwardC

    Wellingtonia felled by idiots!

    It even says that if you look at the TCPA https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/210 Trouble is it's not been updated. If you look closer, at the pink bit at the top of the page I've linked you to, you will see that there are editorial changes yet to be made to the TCPA, and it would appear the guidance too. If you take the trouble to find out what those changes are, you will find that they are... 's. 210(2) words substituted by S.I. 2015/664 Sch. 4 para. 18(5)' which says 'In section 210 (penalties for non-compliance with tree preservation regulations)(f), in subsection (2), for the words following “liable” substitute “on summary conviction, or on conviction on indictment, to a fine”. That is a a fine. No qualifying level or amount. A fine, of the Beaks choosing. Even on summary conviction, ie in the Magistrates Court. Austerity has clearly hit the .gov editorial team. But the changes came into force 12 March 2015 so we should really know this. Trees aren't the only things affected by the primary legislation leading to these Regs. You'd be surprised at what it covers. It's been a long day.
  2. EdwardC

    Tree Measurement and Felling:

    Well it seems a bit light to me. North West Cumbria is as flat as a pancake, well the Solway Plain is. A lot depends on the site. And whilst I live there I'm not personally interested, but if you want a couple of other quotes let me know and I'll give you some contact details.
  3. EdwardC

    Looking for wood

    I was a bit worried that you had come, no pun intended, to the wrong forum. It might have been better if you'd asked for timber to carve. There are some dodgy characters on here who might of thought Christmas had arrived a couple of weeks early for them.
  4. EdwardC

    Wellingtonia felled by idiots!

    http://treesandshrubsonline.org/articles/sequoiadendron/sequoiadendron-giganteum/ From Bean Trees and Shrubs online.
  5. Aren't UK lamb imports into the USA still banned. Not a problem as exports to the EU rose £60 million. But we're about to close our biggest market by both sales and growth down. No doubt all the lamb that we're not selling to the EU can be exported to the USA. If only we could.
  6. EdwardC

    Wellingtonia felled by idiots!

    Sure about what?
  7. EdwardC

    Tpo works question

    Sounds like a bad specification in the first place, maybe shouldn't have been validated. Maybe there's no tree officer. As we don't know the details of the application or the tree maybe it's perfectly acceptable.
  8. EdwardC

    Wellingtonia felled by idiots!

    Even when the fine was limited to £20,000, large fines were rarely imposed.
  9. EdwardC

    Wellingtonia felled by idiots!

    Cant answer that.
  10. EdwardC

    Wellingtonia felled by idiots!

    It's quite clear. The beak can impose 'a fine', a fine of their choosing, whatever that may be. Where do you see the limit on the level of fine that can be imposed. There is no set limit that's why it's unlimited.
  11. EdwardC

    Wellingtonia felled by idiots!

    How much? As much as the Court sees fit. There's no limit so don't look for one it's not there.
  12. EdwardC

    Wellingtonia felled by idiots!

    The last three words ...to a fine.
  13. EdwardC

    Wellingtonia felled by idiots!

    The Legal Aid and Punishment Regs 2015 which amend the TCPA 1990 18.—(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows. 18(5) In section 210 (penalties for non-compliance with tree preservation regulations)(f), in subsection (2), for the words following “liable” substitute “on summary conviction, or on conviction on indictment, to a fine”.
  14. EdwardC

    One for the Tree Officers

    Regards conservation areas. If a TPO'd tree in a conservation area is not under threat any more, why keep it TPO'd. If work is proposed which is acceptable it would be acceptable if it was TPO'd or not. No need for conditions. If there is a need for conditions it is because the work isn't acceptable. In which case TPO the tree. I think the idea of drawing the boundary of your TPO's on the ward boundaries is fraught with danger. A TPO is not a large vascular plant with roots, trunk, branches, twigs and leaves. It's a legal document that places a land charge on a property that prevents certain things being done to tree(s). The first, but by no means the biggest problem is the potential for hugely increased costs of administration. E.g. mapping of a suitable size, 1:1250, would be cumbersome and expensive. TPO's are legal documents. At present you still need the paper thing, electronic only isn't an option. Imagine serving that on every property and land owner, and those with an interest in any of the land in the ward or borough. And doing that every time you varied your living TPO. And you will have to because a TPO is a land charge, and you have imposed that on every property. The result being every time you alter your TPO you will have to write to everyone who is the subject of the TPO/the land charge as it affects their property. If it doesn't affect their property why have you imposed the TPO/land charge on it in the first place. That will be expensive, certainly result in complaints, is probably maladminisration, and is at best cumbersome, and unnecessary. What about these land owners for example, County Council, Crown Estate, Forestry Commission, utility companies, Network Rail, The Highways Agency, the Church Commissioners, the local aerodrome or international hub airport, some, if not all, will be land owners affected by your TPO, trees or no trees, protected or otherwise, all subject to an unnecessary land charge. Imposing a land charge on every property in the borough is going to have consequences far beyond your department. I'd urge you to speak to your legal officers about this before going any further. It will almost certainly result in complaints which could end in maladminisration. Why are you imposing a land charge, the TPO, on my property when there is no tree to protect on, or anywhere near it. I want it removed, and I want it removed now or else...In this day of social media I can see 'action groups' springing up everywhere to fight the tin pot dictators and this bureaucracy gone mad. A real can of worms. Just stick to the property with the tree on it, the tried and trusted method. After all varying the 'living' TPO to include new trees is the same process as making a new Individual TPO, just thousands more landowners to inform in the ward wide TPO. If a tree is in a conservation area and under threat of inappropriate pruning it would score 5 in the TEMPO system. 5) Immediate threat to tree inc. s.211 Notice TEMPO is a guide, not the definitive answer to whether a tree should be protected, that may devolve down to other reasons especially for trees on the cusp of protection or not. Justification to the decision is key.
  15. EdwardC

    Wellingtonia felled by idiots!

    Not really. The fine is unlimited, should the court, even the Magistrates Court, decide to impose it. And then there may be a case for a proceeds of crime order.

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.