Re: Felling licence
| Subject: | Re: Felling licence |
|---|---|
| From: | Simon Pryce Arboriculture |
| Date: | Dec 27 2007 20:23:17 |
From experience of one case a few years ago the "attached to a dwelling
house" bit is highly relevant. In that case the house had been
demolished but some garden features, including bases of greenhouses and
tiled paths were still present. The FC didn't accept the argument that
it was a garden and the case did go to court.
If there is any doubt it is worth being careful with this. I'm, not
sure if the situation has changed in recent years, but at the time
prosecutions were done by MAFF who seemed to pursue them even where the
chances of conviction were well under 50% and there was no obvious
public interest [the DPP criteria]. One Justices Clerk of my
acquaintance used to get really annoyed with the way they clogged his
court up.
Simon -- 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/
Current thread
- Felling licence
Dec 27 2007 13:42:54- Re: Felling licence
Dec 27 2007 16:36:48- RE: Felling licence
Dec 27 2007 16:44:10- Re: Felling licence
Dec 27 2007 20:23:17- RE: Felling licence
Dec 28 2007 07:51:19
- RE: Felling licence
- Re: Felling licence
Dec 27 2007 22:36:19
- Re: Felling licence
- RE: Felling licence
- RE: Felling licence
Dec 27 2007 13:47:42 - Re: Felling licence
Dec 28 2007 09:09:45
- Re: Felling licence