<<Just because a drought never/didn't come - and the tree survived - it
that reason enough to believe that the loss of root is acceptable ?>>
That probably depends on the precise wording of the legislation or planning
condition concerned - is the offence the act of damaging the roots or the
consequences?.
Taking these things all the way to court is always something of a gamble, it's often
better to settle things out of court, like Julian Dunster said a few posts back. For
all the "developer gets hammered for damaging tree" reports there are quite a
few where they get off - sometimes rightly, other times the prosecution don't do their
job properly.
One I was recently involved can be summarised like this:
Owner applies to fell oak in front garden.
LPA refuse
Owner appeals to DCLG
Appeal dismissed
Owner gets [unknown] contractor to lop most of the top off
LPA launch prosecution of owner and wife
Owner's solicitors write nasty letter to LPA - prosecution of wife dropped
Solicitors get Arb to assess amenity value of tree - and by the way, what's
the thing growing at the base?
Arb advises that amenity value low, but tree not fubared - thing at the base
is a fungal bracket, base of tree decayed, but removal of weight has reduced
risk of it failing, so its not an imminent danger.
Owner's solicitors serve five day notice on LPA.
LPA refuse to accept it and threaten prosecution for destruction.
Owner gets tree felled anyway.
Case goes to magistates court - no dispute on technical evidence so Arbs from
each side not required, it's all on legal points.
Case dismissed owner gets costs against LPA.
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
