Post on 15-Mar-2016
description
transcript
Bogus Tree Surgeon Targets
Lichfield Properties
The increasing nature of a tree
surgery company is to demonstrate their
knowledge in health & safety and also
all aspects of the arborists job. It is a
very expensive hobby. This is why I want
to put my view forward and highlight
problems I have come across in the rogue
trader tree surgeon market.
Wirral arb was formed four years ago, after
I had conducted a lot of research in the Wirral
and the surrounding area. I found that there
were a lot of so called tree surgeons operating
in the Wirral.I set my company up, invested in training
and health & safety issues, and purchased
vehicles, chippers, climbing equipment and all
the other equipment, including chainsaws, that
are needed to operate a good arborist company.
We took on experienced climbers and
trained some from the ex-army sector; this also
cost a lot of money. Furthermore we started
in the private sector, doing a lot of work,
and this opened my eyes up to this industry.
Anybody can buy a chainsaw from B&Q and
call themselves a tree surgeon, so I decided
to dig a little deeper and looked in the yellow
pages and local papers and found that approx
85% of tree surgeons that I had seen and
spoken to in the past had no idea about good
pruning techniques or practice of good health
& safety. I was even approached by a so called
tree surgeon with topping and lopping on the
side of his van, he approached me and said
‘Do ya’ know any new techniques for climbing
trees?’ and asked me to show them to him. I
was appalled by this; he basically wanted to
see how we climbed and moved around the
tree and what kit we wore. This so called ‘tree
surgeon’ had been in the business for years.
There are dozens of ‘companies’ like this
all over the Wirral. If you have a quick drive
around my town you can see the devastating
work that the rogue companies have left
behind them.Going back to when I was in private work,
I noticed that the public did not care about
qualifications or what was bad for their trees;
they were just looking for the cheapest quote.
I often thought, why do I bother, when they can
just get any old rogue trader in.
I am not saying every Tree Surgery
company on the Wirral are cow boys, there are
a lot of good companies based on and near the
Wirral.Personally, I think that there should be
something similar to a Corgi registration
process, so that the public know who the
professionals are but it is a very long debate.
We stopped working in the private sector,
as we wanted to do bigger and better things,
and went into Utility Arb and that is a debate
for another day.by Wirral Arb Ltd
Lichfield District Council is warning local residents to be on their guard after a
rogue tree surgeon targeted homes in the city last week. Lichfield District Council
fears that he will continue to scare elderly or vulnerable people into parting with
their money for work he has no intention to do.
The conman has called door to door, claiming that a neighbour is worried
about a tree in their garden, and has asked him to remove it. He then quotes
several hundred pounds for the work. Once the money has been paid in advance,
he disappears, leaving the tree owner out of pocket.
The Council is also warning residents not to cut down their trees without first
checking to see if the tree is legally protected. This could leave the tree owner
facing a fine of up to £20,000 if work is carried out without the consent of Lichfield
District Council.
Councillor Neil Roberts, Cabinet Member for Development Services, said:
“Good tree surgeons are in demand and usually do not have to call at the door
looking for work. In this instance, the rogue trader pretends he has been sent by a
neighbour. We would urge anyone in this situation to check with their neighbour to
find out if this is true before agreeing to any work or parting with money. If you are
concerned about any door to door caller, please contact the police on their non-
emergency number 0845 330 2010.”
If you are looking for a tree surgeon, Lichfield District Council can help. They
also have a checklist of questions you can ask a tree surgeon to help you decide
whether they are genuine. To check if a tree is protected, or for more information,
please call one of the Council’s tree officers on 01543 308000.
Lichfield Neighbourhood Policing Commander, Inspector Jonathan Staite,
urged people to be on their guard against bogus workmen and callers. He
added: “People should never allow anyone to do work or let them into their
home when they call unexpectedly. These conmen will use all kinds of tricks
but often call at homes claiming there is a problem with neighbouring trees,
with the water, gas or electricity.
“If you are not expecting someone to call, the safest thing to do is to
refuse to let them in or carry out any work.”
He said families with older relatives could play an important part by
warning them not to let strangers into their homes and making sure they had
effective security measures such as door chains and locks and knew how to
call for help. Police advice to people includes:
· Never open the door to callers you don’t know
· Always use a door safety chain
· Always ask for identification and check it carefully
· If someone calls unexpectedly, don’t let them in or quote for repairs
· If you have any suspicions, or feel you may be at risk, call police.
First published January 2008
Come across any rogue tree surgeons? .....
send your photo’s and stories to
dal@totalarb.co.ukWe will be
scrutinising this area of our industry and value your opinions
Bogus Tree Surgeon Targets
Lichfield Properties
A resident and a contractor have both been
ordered to ‘pay up’ for drastically pruning trees
without Lichfield District Council’s permission
Mr C Banks, a Little Aston resident who damaged
a protected Oak tree in his garden without Lichfield
District Council’s consent, has been fined £2,000
and ordered to pay costs of over £2,500 by
Tamworth Magistrates on February 5.
Many of the trees in the private estate in Little
Aston are protected by Tree Preservation Orders.
It is an offence under the Town and Country
Planning Act to prune or remove any protected
tree without the local authority’s consent.
The tree, on Squirrel Walk, was part of
woodland that had been protected for over 40
years and it was destroyed within hours. Recognising
the importance of trees in the area, the Magistrate ordered
the owners to plant a replacement Oak tree in the garden
on top of paying a fine.
In a second case, also heard at Tamworth’s Magistrates
court on February 5, a tree contractor was prosecuted
for drastically pruning an Oak tree on Lombard Street,
Lichfield without getting authorisation from the Council.
Mr Raymond Higgins of ‘Tree Care’ was prosecuted under
section 211 of the Town and Country Planning Act. He
was fined £500 plus £1,323.80 costs and a further £15
victim surcharge for the unauthorised works.
The court found that the Oak tree, which is within the
Lichfield Conservation Area, was ‘wilfully damaged’ and
will take a long time to recover. It also transpired that Mr
Higgins was operating without the necessary certificates
of competence for chainsaw work and without public
liability insurance.
Tamworth Magistrates told Mr Higgins that he must take
a heavy responsibility for the unauthorised work and, in
the absence of the householder who asked him to carry
out the works, ordered him to pay the fine plus half of the
Council’s costs.
Councillor Neil Roberts, Cabinet Member for Development
Services, said: “We are charged with protecting the
district’s heritage, helping to keep it an attractive place
to live and work as well as ensuring there are trees and
woodlands for future generations to enjoy. So, we are
delighted with the result of these cases. It gives a clear
message to developers, tree owners and tree surgeons
that Lichfield District Council takes breaches of Tree
Preservation Orders very seriously.”
We would like to thank Lichfield District Council for this
story. First published February 2008
Lichfield District Council is warning local residents to be on their guard after a
rogue tree surgeon targeted homes in the city last week. Lichfield District Council
fears that he will continue to scare elderly or vulnerable people into parting with
their money for work he has no intention to do.
The conman has called door to door, claiming that a neighbour is worried
about a tree in their garden, and has asked him to remove it. He then quotes
several hundred pounds for the work. Once the money has been paid in advance,
he disappears, leaving the tree owner out of pocket.
The Council is also warning residents not to cut down their trees without first
checking to see if the tree is legally protected. This could leave the tree owner
facing a fine of up to £20,000 if work is carried out without the consent of Lichfield
District Council.
Councillor Neil Roberts, Cabinet Member for Development Services, said:
“Good tree surgeons are in demand and usually do not have to call at the door
looking for work. In this instance, the rogue trader pretends he has been sent by a
neighbour. We would urge anyone in this situation to check with their neighbour to
find out if this is true before agreeing to any work or parting with money. If you are
concerned about any door to door caller, please contact the police on their non-
emergency number 0845 330 2010.”
If you are looking for a tree surgeon, Lichfield District Council can help. They
also have a checklist of questions you can ask a tree surgeon to help you decide
whether they are genuine. To check if a tree is protected, or for more information,
please call one of the Council’s tree officers on 01543 308000.
Lichfield Neighbourhood Policing Commander, Inspector Jonathan Staite,
urged people to be on their guard against bogus workmen and callers. He
added: “People should never allow anyone to do work or let them into their
home when they call unexpectedly. These conmen will use all kinds of tricks
but often call at homes claiming there is a problem with neighbouring trees,
with the water, gas or electricity.
“If you are not expecting someone to call, the safest thing to do is to
refuse to let them in or carry out any work.”
He said families with older relatives could play an important part by
warning them not to let strangers into their homes and making sure they had
effective security measures such as door chains and locks and knew how to
call for help. Police advice to people includes:
· Never open the door to callers you don’t know
· Always use a door safety chain
· Always ask for identification and check it carefully
· If someone calls unexpectedly, don’t let them in or quote for repairs
· If you have any suspicions, or feel you may be at risk, call police.
First published January 2008
Employment of rogue tree surgeon leads to prosecution of Aldwick manArun residents are being warned not to carry out unauthorised work on protected trees following the prosecution of a local man. Aldwick resident Ralph Ansley was given a 12-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay £200 costs at Chichester Magistrates Court (6 February) after pleading guilty to ordering the topping and lopping of a beech tree in his garden. The incident came to light on 31 August 2007 when a member of Arun Council’s tree staff spotted a man on a ladder propped against the tree in a dangerous position. On further investigation, the Council discovered that an unlicensed man, cold-calling under the name of ‘Manor House Tree Care of Reading’, had been employed by the resident to cut down a large part of a tree on his property within an Area Tree Preservation Order (TPO).
It is a criminal offence to do works to such trees without Council approval and the offence can carry a fine of up to £20,000. Both the person who authorises the work and the person who carries it out can be prosecuted. The resident was summoned to court and, even though he pleaded ignorance about the existence of the TPO, was prosecuted for his actions.
Councillor Ricky Bower, Cabinet Member for Planning, said: “Ignorance is no defence. Preservation orders are placed on trees for very good reasons and it is the responsibility of any person who wishes to carry out tree work to check with the Local Authority first. “TPOs are there to retain natural amenities for the benefit of everyone, not just for the individual on whose land it rests. We expect these people to be aware of it and to apply for permission to the Council in the correct way or face the consequences.”
He added: “We have lost a great Beech tree that had absolutely nothing wrong with it because of these people. Hopefully others will learn from this case and follow the proper procedures in future.” Ian Brewster, an Arboricultural Officer for Arun, said that apart from doing considerable damage to a perfectly good tree, the resident was wrong to hire someone without checking they had professional qualifications or safety equipment.
“Not only was damaging this tree against the law, it was also extremely dangerous for both the public and the man carrying out the work,” he said. “Tree surgery is a specialist service that should only be carried out by qualified surgeons with the proper expertise, insurance cover and equipment. The man who carried out this work was observed to have no safety harness, protective clothing or helmet and used a washing line to pull down branches. “It is also highly likely that if he damaged any property, or worse, injured someone, that he and the owner of the tree would not be covered by proper indemnity insurance.” The man who carried out this work was not prosecuted as he was untraceable, despite attempts to track him down. Unauthorised works to a protected tree carries a fine of up to £20,000. However this sum can increase dramatically if it can be demonstrated that the damage or loss of a tree would be profitable for the individuals involved.
Any residents intending to employ a tree surgeon are always advised to check their qualifications and current indemnity insurance. We would like to thank Arun Council for this story.
A company that carried out unauthorised work on an oak tree
protected by a Tree Preservation Order was fined £4,500 following a
successful prosecution by Amber Valley Borough Council.
Robert Brown, Managing Director of Trafalgar House Ltd, entered a guilty
plea on behalf of the company at the hearing at Southern Derbyshire Magistrates’
Court. The company was also ordered to pay £2,500 costs.
The tree is located in the garden of 16 Chatham Court in Belper. The
Council’s Tree Officer visited the property to inspect the tree in April 2007. He was
immediately concerned because work had been carried out to a protected tree
without authorisation from the Council, and it was clear the work that had been
done was of a very poor standard. The cuts were white, showing they had been
done very recently, and there were large tears to the tree caused by the weight of
the branches falling.
Chris Beal, Landscape Officer at Amber Valley Borough Council said “Where
unauthorised works are carried out to trees, the Council is at a considerable
disadvantage because officers only see the end result; they do not know what
condition the tree was in beforehand. In this case, several neighbours came
forward and provided witness evidence because they felt so aggrieved about the
damage caused to the tree.
“The defence has said that all the way through these proceedings they only
removed a few dead and hollow branches from the tree, but the evidence provided
by the neighbours disputes that and, most certainly, the works carried out to the
tree were not done in accordance with good arboricultural practice. In this case, it
was clear that someone had just taken a chainsaw to the branches, with no regard
for the British Standard recommendations for tree works.
“We would especially like to thank all the neighbours who came forward
and provided the crucial evidence that helped us secure a guilty plea from
the defendant. Hopefully this prosecution will serve as a warning to anyone
considering carrying out unauthorised work on protected trees in the Borough.”
The Council also employed an arboricultural consultant from Midland Tree
Surgeons to examine the tree. He stated that in his opinion:-
• thetreewasT42ontheTreePreservationOrder,
• itisabouta100yearsold,sowouldhavebeenmatur
eandwellestablished,
about 70 years old, when the order was made,
• ithasbeensubjectedtosevereandbrutalpruningwh
ichinnowayaccords
with modern arboricultural practice, and
• despiteitstillretainingsomelimitedbiologicalfunctio
n,ithaseffectivelybeen
destroyed.The law on trees states that in order for a tree to have been destroyed, it is not
necessary to completely obliterate it, but it must have been rendered useless
as an amenity or as something worth
preserving. This is most certainly the
case for this oak tree.
A tree surgeon who illegally hacked down part of a protected ash under orders from a rogue developer has been prosecuted.
Village Homes ordered the dismemberment of the tree on land it wanted to build on, a court heard.
Karl Danecker, who lopped branches from the Ash, will now havetopaymorethan£4,000infinesandcostsafterpleading guiltytotheoffenceinMossLane,Pinner,inNovember.
The judgment on Friday (15) came just two weeks after the company itself was convicted of the same offence and ordered to pay out nearly £3,500.
PresentingalettersenttohimbyVillageHomesatHarrow Magistrates Court on Friday last week, Danecker defended his work.
The 35-year-old from Chesham, Buckinghamshire, said: “The letter they sent me clearly states they said there was no order on the tree, so having worked for them so many times I undertook the work.”
“Basically I have been doing work for Village Homes for many years and always worked on the understanding they weren’t preserved, there was no reason for me to question the letter.”
PresidingmagistrateAdamReubensdismissedhisexcuse. He said: “I would have expected a man in your position to have been less ignorant about the work you were carrying out and you should have made checks yourself to see if it had a preservation order on it.
“You have demonstrated a complete lack of responsibility and professionalism and it’s totally unacceptable.”
Edmund Robb, prosecuting, said in court that the work had been done in order to provide extra space for a garage - part of Village Homes’ plans for a multi-million-pound development.
The proposals have been heavily criticised by neighbours who have campaigned against them for more than a year and a half.
When the tree - under a preservation order since 1988 - was chopped illegally the council stepped in.
Speaking after the latest court case councillor Marilyn Ashton (Conservative), responsible for planning, said: “We will not allow the wanton destruction of trees because a developer or anyone else with a vested interest finds them inconvenient.”
Danecker told the Observer Village Homes would help pay his fine when the houses are built.
He said: “Apparently, Village Homes is going to help me out with the costs. When the development goes through and building work starts then I might see some money.
“I am not sure if I am going to take them to court. I rang them up and spoke to them briefly and we are on speaking terms.”
The Watford-based firm’s website lists Warren Rosenberg as director.
When the Observer asked Village Homes if the preservation order was deliberately ignored and whether anyone would be sackedoverit,aspokesmansaid:“Nocomment”.
Harrow Observer serieswww.harrowobserver.co.uk
Come across any rogue tree surgeons/
developers? ..... send your photo’s and
stories to dal@eworldoftrees.comWe will be scrutinising
this area of our industry and value your opinions
Bridgetown Properties have pleaded guilty to felling seven protected trees at a site adjacent to Anston House in Preston Road, Brighton last year. The case, the first of its kind to be brought by Brighton & Hove City Council since its inception more than a decade ago, will now go to the Crown Court for sentencing. The Crown Court’s powers of punishment are significantly greater than those of the Magistrates, so Bridgetown Properties may well face substantial fines. Green Cllr Amy Kennedy, who last year presented the council with a petition signed by almost 600 local residents calling for this prosecution, said:
“This is a stunning result, and will send shockwaves through the world of property development. “Not only is this the first time Brighton & Hove council has pursued a prosecution under a Tree Preservation Order, the decision by Magistrates to pass the case up to the Crown Court means Bridgetown may well face far more than the usual small-change fine for this kind of illegal act. “Typically, the maximum punishment for destroying listed trees is peanuts to rogue property developers - many simply factor in the cost of the fine in their plans rather than obey the law in the first place. “But the Crown Court’s powers of punishment are significantly greater than those of the Magistrates court. The sentencing hearing, to be held in January, could well make future property developers think twice before destroying preserved trees.
“Bridgetown properties’ decision to plead guilty, after almost 600 residents signed a petition calling for this prosecution, is testament to the months of tireless work from officers in gathering evidence. “Brighton & Hove enforcement officers have worked their socks off to get it to this stage, and I hope this will restore some of the public’s faith in how the local authority deals with unscrupulous developers who breach their planning permission, as they’ve done an excellent job on this.”
Bridgetown Properties, a Surrey-based property development company, and its director Timothy Harding, were last month handed fines totalling £30,000 for felling five protected trees at a site adjacent to Anston House in Preston Road, Brighton in June 2007.Bridgetown and Harding last year pleaded guilty to the charge, and local Magistrates decided to pass sentencing up to the Crown Court, which meant developers faced the prospect of a far higher fine than the statutory minimum of £20,000 per tree.
Harding filed for bankruptcy on Monday January 19th, three days before sentencing was to be made. The law
required that the judge take this into consideration when imposing a fine.Green Cllr Amy Kennedy said: “I can’t help but wonder at Tim Harding’s decision to file for bankruptcy, especially this week. “The judge could well have handed down a far higher fine, but was obliged to consider Harding’s apparent financial situation. “I am disappointed that the Crown Court did not exercise the full extent of its powers, but the very fact that this case made it this far should send out a powerful message to rogue developers that Brighton & Hove City Council will not tolerate the deliberate and calculated destruction of protected trees in the city. “Not only is this the first time Brighton & Hove council has pursued a prosecution under
a Tree Preservation Order, the decision by Magistrates to pass the case up to the Crown Court ensured Bridgetown faced far more than the usual small-change fine for this kind of illegal act – even though it wasn’t as high as it could have been. “I will now be lobbying the government to review the statutory fine for illegally felling protected trees, which is set at a mere £20,000 per tree. On a multi-million pound scheme this figure is just peanuts to big developers - many simply factor in the cost of the fine in their plans rather than obey the law in the first place.
“The law needs to be revisited, with the statutory fine raised to a level which creates a real deterrent against destroying protected trees.”
GREEN CLLR CRITICISES ‘LENIENT FINE’ FOR DEVELOPER GUILTY OF KILLING PRESERVED TREES
GROUNDBREAKING COURT
CASE SEES DEVELOPER
PLEAD GUILTY TO FELLING
PROTECTED TREES
a World of Trees Issue 18
Developers ‘Stunning result’ welcomed by Green Cllr Amy Kennedy
UPDATE
Company fined for destroying protected tree
Fine for destroying protected tree
A company that carried out unauthorised work on an oak tree
protected by a Tree Preservation Order was fined £4,500 following a
successful prosecution by Amber Valley Borough Council.
Robert Brown, Managing Director of Trafalgar House Ltd, entered a guilty
plea on behalf of the company at the hearing at Southern Derbyshire Magistrates’
Court. The company was also ordered to pay £2,500 costs.
The tree is located in the garden of 16 Chatham Court in Belper. The
Council’s Tree Officer visited the property to inspect the tree in April 2007. He was
immediately concerned because work had been carried out to a protected tree
without authorisation from the Council, and it was clear the work that had been
done was of a very poor standard. The cuts were white, showing they had been
done very recently, and there were large tears to the tree caused by the weight of
the branches falling.
Chris Beal, Landscape Officer at Amber Valley Borough Council said “Where
unauthorised works are carried out to trees, the Council is at a considerable
disadvantage because officers only see the end result; they do not know what
condition the tree was in beforehand. In this case, several neighbours came
forward and provided witness evidence because they felt so aggrieved about the
damage caused to the tree.
“The defence has said that all the way through these proceedings they only
removed a few dead and hollow branches from the tree, but the evidence provided
by the neighbours disputes that and, most certainly, the works carried out to the
tree were not done in accordance with good arboricultural practice. In this case, it
was clear that someone had just taken a chainsaw to the branches, with no regard
for the British Standard recommendations for tree works.
“We would especially like to thank all the neighbours who came forward
and provided the crucial evidence that helped us secure a guilty plea from
the defendant. Hopefully this prosecution will serve as a warning to anyone
considering carrying out unauthorised work on protected trees in the Borough.”
The Council also employed an arboricultural consultant from Midland Tree
Surgeons to examine the tree. He stated that in his opinion:-
• thetreewasT42ontheTreePreservationOrder,
• itisabouta100yearsold,sowouldhavebeenmatur
eandwellestablished,
about 70 years old, when the order was made,
• ithasbeensubjectedtosevereandbrutalpruningwh
ichinnowayaccords
with modern arboricultural practice, and
• despiteitstillretainingsomelimitedbiologicalfunctio
n,ithaseffectivelybeen
destroyed.The law on trees states that in order for a tree to have been destroyed, it is not
necessary to completely obliterate it, but it must have been rendered useless
as an amenity or as something worth
preserving. This is most certainly the
case for this oak tree.
A tree surgeon who illegally hacked down part of a protected ash under orders from a rogue developer has been prosecuted.
Village Homes ordered the dismemberment of the tree on land it wanted to build on, a court heard.
Karl Danecker, who lopped branches from the Ash, will now havetopaymorethan£4,000infinesandcostsafterpleading guiltytotheoffenceinMossLane,Pinner,inNovember.
The judgment on Friday (15) came just two weeks after the company itself was convicted of the same offence and ordered to pay out nearly £3,500.
PresentingalettersenttohimbyVillageHomesatHarrow Magistrates Court on Friday last week, Danecker defended his work.
The 35-year-old from Chesham, Buckinghamshire, said: “The letter they sent me clearly states they said there was no order on the tree, so having worked for them so many times I undertook the work.”
“Basically I have been doing work for Village Homes for many years and always worked on the understanding they weren’t preserved, there was no reason for me to question the letter.”
PresidingmagistrateAdamReubensdismissedhisexcuse. He said: “I would have expected a man in your position to have been less ignorant about the work you were carrying out and you should have made checks yourself to see if it had a preservation order on it.
“You have demonstrated a complete lack of responsibility and professionalism and it’s totally unacceptable.”
Edmund Robb, prosecuting, said in court that the work had been done in order to provide extra space for a garage - part of Village Homes’ plans for a multi-million-pound development.
The proposals have been heavily criticised by neighbours who have campaigned against them for more than a year and a half.
When the tree - under a preservation order since 1988 - was chopped illegally the council stepped in.
Speaking after the latest court case councillor Marilyn Ashton (Conservative), responsible for planning, said: “We will not allow the wanton destruction of trees because a developer or anyone else with a vested interest finds them inconvenient.”
Danecker told the Observer Village Homes would help pay his fine when the houses are built.
He said: “Apparently, Village Homes is going to help me out with the costs. When the development goes through and building work starts then I might see some money.
“I am not sure if I am going to take them to court. I rang them up and spoke to them briefly and we are on speaking terms.”
The Watford-based firm’s website lists Warren Rosenberg as director.
When the Observer asked Village Homes if the preservation order was deliberately ignored and whether anyone would be sackedoverit,aspokesmansaid:“Nocomment”.
Harrow Observer serieswww.harrowobserver.co.uk
Come across any rogue tree surgeons/
developers? ..... send your photo’s and
stories to dal@eworldoftrees.comWe will be scrutinising
this area of our industry and value your opinions
Bridgetown Properties have pleaded guilty to felling seven protected trees at a site adjacent to Anston House in Preston Road, Brighton last year. The case, the first of its kind to be brought by Brighton & Hove City Council since its inception more than a decade ago, will now go to the Crown Court for sentencing. The Crown Court’s powers of punishment are significantly greater than those of the Magistrates, so Bridgetown Properties may well face substantial fines. Green Cllr Amy Kennedy, who last year presented the council with a petition signed by almost 600 local residents calling for this prosecution, said:
“This is a stunning result, and will send shockwaves through the world of property development. “Not only is this the first time Brighton & Hove council has pursued a prosecution under a Tree Preservation Order, the decision by Magistrates to pass the case up to the Crown Court means Bridgetown may well face far more than the usual small-change fine for this kind of illegal act. “Typically, the maximum punishment for destroying listed trees is peanuts to rogue property developers - many simply factor in the cost of the fine in their plans rather than obey the law in the first place. “But the Crown Court’s powers of punishment are significantly greater than those of the Magistrates court. The sentencing hearing, to be held in January, could well make future property developers think twice before destroying preserved trees.
“Bridgetown properties’ decision to plead guilty, after almost 600 residents signed a petition calling for this prosecution, is testament to the months of tireless work from officers in gathering evidence. “Brighton & Hove enforcement officers have worked their socks off to get it to this stage, and I hope this will restore some of the public’s faith in how the local authority deals with unscrupulous developers who breach their planning permission, as they’ve done an excellent job on this.”
Bridgetown Properties, a Surrey-based property development company, and its director Timothy Harding, were last month handed fines totalling £30,000 for felling five protected trees at a site adjacent to Anston House in Preston Road, Brighton in June 2007.Bridgetown and Harding last year pleaded guilty to the charge, and local Magistrates decided to pass sentencing up to the Crown Court, which meant developers faced the prospect of a far higher fine than the statutory minimum of £20,000 per tree.
Harding filed for bankruptcy on Monday January 19th, three days before sentencing was to be made. The law
required that the judge take this into consideration when imposing a fine.Green Cllr Amy Kennedy said: “I can’t help but wonder at Tim Harding’s decision to file for bankruptcy, especially this week. “The judge could well have handed down a far higher fine, but was obliged to consider Harding’s apparent financial situation. “I am disappointed that the Crown Court did not exercise the full extent of its powers, but the very fact that this case made it this far should send out a powerful message to rogue developers that Brighton & Hove City Council will not tolerate the deliberate and calculated destruction of protected trees in the city. “Not only is this the first time Brighton & Hove council has pursued a prosecution under
a Tree Preservation Order, the decision by Magistrates to pass the case up to the Crown Court ensured Bridgetown faced far more than the usual small-change fine for this kind of illegal act – even though it wasn’t as high as it could have been. “I will now be lobbying the government to review the statutory fine for illegally felling protected trees, which is set at a mere £20,000 per tree. On a multi-million pound scheme this figure is just peanuts to big developers - many simply factor in the cost of the fine in their plans rather than obey the law in the first place.
“The law needs to be revisited, with the statutory fine raised to a level which creates a real deterrent against destroying protected trees.”
GREEN CLLR CRITICISES ‘LENIENT FINE’ FOR DEVELOPER GUILTY OF KILLING PRESERVED TREES
GROUNDBREAKING COURT
CASE SEES DEVELOPER
PLEAD GUILTY TO FELLING
PROTECTED TREES
Developers ‘Stunning result’ welcomed by Green Cllr Amy Kennedy
UPDATE
Company fined for destroying protected tree
Fine for destroying protected tree
CARDIFF COUNCIL PROSECUTES ROGUE TRADER
Cardiff Council’s Trading Standards has successfully prosecuted a rogue trader who
pleaded guilty to duping pensioners into having gardening work completed for excessively
high prices.James Janes admitted four offences under the Fraud Act 2006, one offence under Section 14
of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and a further offence of increasing the price charged for work at
Cardiff Magistrates Court on October 5th.
Mr Janes, from Shirenewton Caravan Park in Cardiff, was ordered to pay fi nes totalling more
than £500. The offences related to gardening work that had been carried out by Mr Janes and his
associates under the business names of Mr James Tree Surgeons, Michael Ross Tree Surgeons and
John Elliott Tree Surgeons. Flyers for all businesses were distributed across the City making false
claims that the ‘Tree Surgeons’ were fully insured and Fair Trades registered.
Prices for the work were often infl ated following the initial quotation. The gardeners’ aggressive
behaviour caused vulnerable consumers to feel intimidated and pressurised into having further
unnecessary work completed. In one case, Mr Janes attempted to recover an extra £240 from the
agreed price of £390 claiming that he had “forgotten labour costs”. In another instance a £80 quotation
rose to a fi nal bill of £360.
Councillor Judith Woodman, Executive Member for Communities, Housing and Social Justice said:
“This type of behaviour will not be tolerated in Cardiff and the outcome should be a lesson to traders
who still choose to conduct business in this way. Trading Standards offi cers are continuing to work
closely with the Police to eliminate rogue traders and incidences of Doorstep Crime.”
Dave Holland, Operational Manager Consumer Protection added: “It is usually best to employ a
tradesman that you know or whose work you have been able to inspect. Remember do not buy from
the door and don’t pay in advance for work to be done. If anyone thinks that they, or someone they
know, may have been a victim of a rogue trader, it is important that the incident is reported to Trading
Standards and/or the Police.”
Residents can report incidents of doorstep crime in their area to Consumer Direct
Wales on 08454 04 05 06 or 08454 04 05 05 for a Welsh speaking operator.
“ This type of behaviour will not be tolerated in Cardiff and the outcome should be a lesson to traders who still choose to conduct business in this way”
Come across any rogue tree surgeons? .....
send your photo’s and stories to
dal@totalarb.co.ukWe will be
scrutinising this area of our industry and value your opinions
TArb 26-27 Rogue.indd 1 10/9/08 17:43:08
CARDIFF COUNCIL PROSECUTES ROGUE TRADER
Cardiff Council’s Trading Standards has successfully prosecuted a rogue trader who
pleaded guilty to duping pensioners into having gardening work completed for excessively
high prices.James Janes admitted four offences under the Fraud Act 2006, one offence under Section 14
of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and a further offence of increasing the price charged for work at
Cardiff Magistrates Court on October 5th.
Mr Janes, from Shirenewton Caravan Park in Cardiff, was ordered to pay fi nes totalling more
than £500. The offences related to gardening work that had been carried out by Mr Janes and his
associates under the business names of Mr James Tree Surgeons, Michael Ross Tree Surgeons and
John Elliott Tree Surgeons. Flyers for all businesses were distributed across the City making false
claims that the ‘Tree Surgeons’ were fully insured and Fair Trades registered.
Prices for the work were often infl ated following the initial quotation. The gardeners’ aggressive
behaviour caused vulnerable consumers to feel intimidated and pressurised into having further
unnecessary work completed. In one case, Mr Janes attempted to recover an extra £240 from the
agreed price of £390 claiming that he had “forgotten labour costs”. In another instance a £80 quotation
rose to a fi nal bill of £360.
Councillor Judith Woodman, Executive Member for Communities, Housing and Social Justice said:
“This type of behaviour will not be tolerated in Cardiff and the outcome should be a lesson to traders
who still choose to conduct business in this way. Trading Standards offi cers are continuing to work
closely with the Police to eliminate rogue traders and incidences of Doorstep Crime.”
Dave Holland, Operational Manager Consumer Protection added: “It is usually best to employ a
tradesman that you know or whose work you have been able to inspect. Remember do not buy from
the door and don’t pay in advance for work to be done. If anyone thinks that they, or someone they
know, may have been a victim of a rogue trader, it is important that the incident is reported to Trading
Standards and/or the Police.”
Residents can report incidents of doorstep crime in their area to Consumer Direct
Wales on 08454 04 05 06 or 08454 04 05 05 for a Welsh speaking operator.
Arun residents are being warned not to carry out unauthorised work on protected trees following the prosecution of three local people.Tree surgeon Steve Wadey of Middleton-on-Sea was given a 12-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay £250 costs at Worthing Magistrates Court on Monday (16 June) after pleading guilty to ordering the felling of a Corsican pine tree at Beehive Lane in Ferring.The incident came to light in September 2007 when a member of the public reported the works to the Council’s Compliance Team.On further investigation, the Council discovered that Mr Wadey had been employed by the property owner to cut down a large tree at the front of her property. The tree was covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).
It is a criminal offence to do works to such trees without Council approval and the offence can carry a fi ne of up to £20,000. Both the person who authorises the work and the person who carries it out can be prosecuted. The land owner instructed her gardener to carry out the works but the gardener instructed the tree surgeon, Mr Wadey. All three were summoned to court as it is offence to both carry out the works and order that the works be carried out. The owner and gardener pleaded guilty and were both given complete discharges at an earlier hearing which Mr Wadey failed to attend. Councillor Ricky Bower, Cabinet Member for Planning, said: “Preservation orders are placed on trees for very good reasons and it is the responsibili-ty of any person who wishes to carry out tree work to check with the Local Authority fi rst. “TPOs are there to retain natural amenities for the benefi t of everyone, not just for the individual on whose land it rests. We expect these people to be aware of it and to apply for permission to the Council in the correct way or face the consequences.”
He added: “We have lost a great Corsican pine tree that had absolutely nothing wrong with it because of these people. Hopefully others will learn from this case and follow the proper procedures in future.” Unauthorised works to a protected tree carries a fi ne of up to £20,000. However this sum can increase dramatically if it can be demonstrated that the damage or loss of a tree would be profi table for the individuals involved. The Council will ensure that an appropriate tree is replanted.
Three prosecuted for Ferring tree offence
TArb 26-27 Rogue.indd 2 10/9/08 17:42:18
Man charged with false representation offence
Local resident prosecuted for environmental damage
Following a recent investigation
by Chelmsford Borough Council,
Chelmsford Magistrates Court has
imposed a fi ne of £750 plus £120
costs on a Chelmsford man who
carried out unauthorised works on
three ‘protected’ Poplar trees in the
Springfi eld area.These trees are protected by a Tree
Preservation Order, which means that no
work is permitted to be carried out on them
in any way, without prior consent from the
Council.The Council’s Tree Offi cer responded
immediately following a telephone call from
a member of the public in June 2007, who
reported that works had allegedly been
carried out. The Tree Offi cer visited the site
and discovered that a number of branches
had been removed to reduce the trees to
little more than ‘totem poles’. The Offi cers
then carried out an interview with the owner
of the trees, but unfortunately were unable
to trace the location or whereabouts of the
person employed to carry out the work on
the owner’s behalf.Carrying out any unauthorised works
to protected trees is an offence, and it was
important that the Council acted
when this case was brought to
their attention. Other cases are
now being investigated, including
a case which is to be heard in
court at the end of March.
A Chelmsford Borough Council
spokeswoman said: “The Council is pleased
with the outcome of this prosecution in
the Magistrates Court. It sends out a clear
message to people that they should consult
the Council before going ahead with works
to protected trees. It will also help to make
tree owners more aware of unscrupulous
operators who give genuine tree surgeons a
bad name.”
Following another recent
investigation by Chelmsford Borough
Council Tree Offi cers, Chelmsford
Magistrates Court has imposed a fi ne
of £500 plus £60 costs on another local
man Alan Gowers, who carried out
unauthorised works to trees within the
Margaretting Conservation Area.
The Council’s Tree Offi cer responded
immediately following a telephone call from a
member of the public in August 2007. The
Tree Offi cer visited the site and
discovered that two Leyland Cypress
trees had been removed. The Offi cer
then interviewed the owner of the trees
who was fully aware of the necessary
procedures, and admitted that he knew
he should have notifi ed the Council before
performing any work.
This is the second successful
prosecution by Chelmsford Borough Council
within a month, and there are a number
of further related investigations currently
underway.A Chelmsford Borough Council
spokeswoman said: “This is another success
for the Council and hopefully this will
re-enforce the message that it is a criminal
offence to do this sort of work without going
through the proper channels.”
A man has appeared before magistrates in Newton Aycliffe after being charged with an offence of false representation which took place in Wolsingham.On Thursday 3rd April an 82 year old woman in Wolsingham answered her door to the two men. The lady was expecting a visit from a local fi rm of tree surgeons.The men posing as the legitimate fi rm began to carry out work on the garden.After ringing the fi rm she had booked to do the work to check it was revealed that the workers were not affi liated to the fi rm.The lady confronted the men, realising they had been found out the two men made off after being paid by the resident, making good their escape in a distinctively marked vehicle.
Police were called and the incident was recorded as a crime under the new fraud
act introduced in 2006.The following Tuesday (8th April) PCSO Michelle Williamson on duty in Willington noticed a vehicle fi tting the description of that used in the Willington offence and two men who also fi tted the bill.
Police attended and the men were arrested, after further investigation and interview by Crook CID one male was charged with false representation, theft and motoring offences. The second male was released without charge.The man was placed before Newton Aycliffe Magistrates Court and remanded in custody.D/Sgt Neil Edgar of Crook CID said, “I would recommend that residents only commision work with reputable companies and by pre-arranged appointment. When workers do attend your home make sure you check their identity and if you are
unsure check with the company involved.”“Quite often these types of criminals prey on the elderly and vulnerable,” added the sergeant.
Follow onMichael McDonough of Carlisle, appeared before Durham Crown Court on 10/4/2008 and after having pleaded guilty to offences of making false representation to make gain for himself or another and theft he was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. He was also dealt with for motoring offences for which he was disqualifi ed from driving for a total of 12 months.
Rogue 28-29.indd 1 10/9/08 17:44:17
SURGEONS‘Danger’ and TPO LAW (case in Court)
Arun District Council had little
alternative but to prosecute a farmer
who had damaged part of a preserved
woodland. The farmer had removed
overhanging branches thought to
present a danger to farm vehicles. The
required height for removal of obstructing
branches should have been to 4.8m, with
an extra 1m for wind-flexing, taking this
to 5.8m. The method employed to remove
the branches was by way of a mechanical
excavator. The action of the bucket upon
the branches caused alarm to locals who
reported the incident to the Council. It
was found that the mechanical digger
removed branches above the required
height in parts upwards of 8m. It was a
fact that the farmer was not aware of
the Tree Preservation Order and would
not have been able to provide the 5 day
notification for exemptions for dead, dying
and/or dangerous trees. The Council
were made aware of the work after the
tree damage had occurred.
After the Council had served notification
of intent to prosecute and forwarded copies of
the Council Tree Officers statement, the farmer
employed an eminent consultant. The tree
consultant provided a report on the woodland
condition, the woodland TPO, commented on
the Council Arboricultural Officers statement,
the concept of ‘danger’ and supporting
the actions of the farmer as a ‘prudent citizen’
and their awareness & policy of the Health and
Safety at Work Act (1974). The Council had not
appreciated the relevance of the consultant
lengthy report until the magistrates were
asked to summarise this against the Council
Tree Officers brief statement on the day of the
hearing. The Council’s Tree Officer read
the consultants report, described by
the magistrates as ‘clear, comprehensive,
and very full in detail’. The Tree Officer’s
opinion is that it contained many areas of
concern which would not have been obvious
to the magistrates. Prior to the court case the
Council deliberated as to whether each point
of concern within the consultants report should
be highlighted and questioned in court. The
Council felt confident however that the act
of criminal ‘damage’ was clear and sufficient
to reach a guilty verdict. It would appear
that the magistrates decision was based
largely upon this report, an overload of biased
information perhaps, and in hindsight the
Council should have made every effort to
reduce its potency by critical analysis in court.
The Court magistrates based
their verdict on whether the branches were
a present danger and based their findings
on the definition of danger from the court
case ‘Smith v Oliver (1989)’. It was found
that ‘on the balance of probability’ there was
a 51% chance that a danger existed in the
form of low hanging branches causing an
obstruction. One important point to mention was
raised by the defendants lawyer with regard
to Section 198, 6 (b) of the Town and Country
Planning Act where its states it does not
require a pruning ‘standard’ to carry out
the removal of dangerous branches . Target
Pruning and ‘in accordance with British
Standard 3998 (1989)’ amazingly does
not apply here. This has to be flaw in that
unorthodox methods of limb removal from
an otherwise healthy and safe tree will
cause (in this case the ripping of branches
with a mechanical excavation bucket) severe
wounding to it and ultimately lead to further
complications such as decay, cavity formation
and eventual main stem failure, a very important
point especially where a ‘target area’ already
exists (such as a highway). Archaic
terminology within the Town and Country
Planning Act of 1990 and other tree legislation
“ We are looking to investigate a rogue tree surgeon firm who are currently
operating. What we need initially is information regarding the company and
what they are allegedly doing wrong. If any of the companies you are in touch
with would happen to know of any rogue tree surgeons it would be great if they
could get in touch via email to enquiries@eworldoftrees.com.”
BBC Watchdog need your help
SURGEONS
The pictures attached show the snapping and tearing of branches which
have not been cut to the appropriate ‘target’ pruning points.
The unorthodox removal of dangerous branches from an otherwise safe
and healthy tree are likely to become points of failure, creating a further
danger where the removal of the entire tree would be required.
Admittedly, the work is not dissimilar to ‘Fracture Pruning’ believed
to benefit wildlife and habitat. However in locations close to existing
‘targets’ for example such as highways, footpaths and property, it
is inappropriate.
highlights the desperate need for its update and change, otherwise the Local Planning Authority will fail in its duty again to provide complete protection for TPO’d trees and successful prosecution.In this instance the Council did not entirely loose because the magistrates found no unreasonableness shown in bringing the case of prosecution to court. All costs where therefore payable form central funds and not form the Council’s own resources.Disclaimer: The above has been written independently by the Council’s Tree Officer and are not the views of the Arun District Council.
SURGEONS Tree Surgeon cuts down 200 year old oak
A 200 year old oak belonging to Dartington Hall was hacked down by a Tree Surgeon, who then handed it back as logs.The court heard how the 32 year old who lived in a caravan on farmland near the hall was seen by the land manager cutting down the tree in November last year. He had not asked for permission to cut down the tree, which was believed to be approximately 200 years old.When the police arrived at the scene the tree had toppled across the road, blocking the lane and when questioned he admitted the tree did not belong to him. He told the court the chopped pieces of tree were worth about £500 as fuel and he wanted to burn it in his wood stove. He later returned the chopped pieces to the estate in the form of logs.His defence lawyer said he had worked on the Dartington estate in the past as a qualified tree surgeon and the tree was rotten and he knew it would have to come down, it was unfortunate he did not ask permission first.
He was given credit for his early guilty plea and was fined £67, a victim’s surcharge of £15 and costs of £40.
“ We are looking to investigate a rogue tree surgeon firm who are currently operating. What we
need initially is information regarding the company and what they are allegedly doing wrong. If
any of the companies you are in touch with would happen to know of any rogue tree surgeons it
would be great if they could get in touch via email to enquiries@eworldoftrees.com.”
BBC Watchdog need your help