Adv er t i s eHer e
panies have left work that the rogue com rk, wo of lot a ng in the private sector, doi behind them. ry. e of a tree s in private work, my eyes up to this indust ned ope The increasing natur this Going back to when I wa and ir the te and tra Q ns B& mo from de to aw ins did not care about surgery company is Anybody can buy a cha I noticed that the public ided and also dec I ety so saf n, & h geo alt sur s bad for their trees; he wa tree in at a knowledge call themselves qualifications or wh a is low It . yel job the in sts ori ked loo the cheapest quote. all aspects of the arb to dig a little deeper and they were just looking for y I want approx wh t is tha is nd Th fou y. her, when they can bb and bot ho I ers e very expensiv pages and local pap I often thought, why do t gh hli and n hig d see an rd t I had er in. to put my view forwa 85% of tree surgeons tha just get any old rogue trad across in the rogue idea about good ing every Tree Surgery say not problems I have come ken to in the past had no am I spo re are market. ctice of good health Wirral are cow boys, the trader tree surgeon pruning techniques or pra , after led company on the cal ago r the rs so a nea yea r by and d fou d on che me ed roa for bas Wirral arb was & safety. I was even app a lot of good companies g on the ch in the Wirral pin ear lop res and of g lot pin a top ted h duc wit I had con tree surgeon Wirral. a. I found that there re should be ched me and said and the surrounding are e of his van, he approa Personally, I think that the sid ng g rati bin ope ns clim for geo s sur que istration tree hni reg led tec rgi cal Co new a so to of were a lot ‘Do ya’ know any something similar I . him to m the w w sho lic kno who the in the Wirral. trees?’ and asked me to process, so that the pub nted to ed in training wa est lly inv ica up, bas y a very long debate. he pan ; is it this com I set my was appalled by professionals are but sed the cha und pur aro and , ved mo the private sector, and health & safety issues We stopped working in see how we climbed and ‘tree ent and all led ipm cal so equ s g better things, Thi bin and re. clim wo ger rs, vehicles, chippe tree and what kit we as we wanted to do big ss for years. ing chainsaws, that ine t is a debate lud tha bus inc , the and ent in n Arb ipm lity bee equ Uti er had the oth and went into company. surgeon’ this t like oris arb es’ d ani goo mp a ‘co rate of are needed to ope There are dozens for another day. ck drive d climbers and by Wirral Arb Ltd Wirral. If you have a qui We took on experience the r ove all o als g this ; atin tor ast sec y dev arm the exsee the trained some from around my town you can thermore we started cost a lot of money. Fur
argets T n o e g r u S Bogus TreeProperties to be on their guard afterila eldCouncil is warning locatyl relasistdewnteesk. Lichfield Dispatrrticint Cgouwncith Licchhfifi into e ci D eld istrict able people homes in th
Li vulner rgeted e elderly or surgeon ta is worried rogue tree will continue to scar ntion to do. neighbour te fears that he for work he has no in door, claiming that a e it. He then quotes e, to their money an has called door s asked him to remov been paid in advanc has ey The conm eir garden, and ha on m e th in th rst ork.Once s without fi about a tree red pounds for the w r out of pocket. n their tree ne several hundrs, leaving the tree ow sidents not to cut dow leave the tree owner d d Lichfiel he disappea ncil is also warning re protected. This coul ut th e consent of lly ho ga it le w t The Cou is ou ee d see if the tr ork is carrie id: checking to of up to £20,000 if w t Sevr ices, sa ne fi a ng Developmen to call at the door r fo faci r be em ve ncil. et M by a District Cou or Neil Roberts,Cabin d and usually do not hads he has been sent r to hbou preten ig deman Councill er ne in r ad e ei tr ar e th ns h surgeo eck wit u are , the rogu “Good tree ork. In this instance in this situation to ch ing with money. If yo w rt looking for e would urge anyone ng to any work or pa e police on their nonW neighbour. is is true before agreei ller, please contact th ca n help. They find out if th out any door to door .” t Council ca u decide ab ic 10 d tr is 20 ne D 0 er d 33 nc el fi yo co 45 rgeon, Lich number 08 rgeonot help n, emergency e looking for a tree su you can ask a tree su for more informatio or s d, on te ti ec If you ar es ot qu pr of is t is ee tr kl . chec k if a 8000 also have a are genuine.To chec officers on 01543 30 tor Jonathan Staite, ey whether th e of the Council’s tree g Commander, Inspec and calel rs. He in on en please call d Neighbourhood Polic ainst bogus workm let them into their k or ard ag or gu Lichfiel w r ei of tricks do th to anyone e all kinds le to be on urged peop ple should never allow . These conmen will us ighbouring trees, ne ly added: “Peo they call unexpected ere is a problem with is to home when ll at homes claiming th thing to do but often ca er, gas or electricity. eone to call,the safest with the watare not expecting som y work.” t part by d t an an importan “If you in or carry our relatives could play d making sure they ha em th t le to to an de refuse d knew how ilies with ol their homes He said fam t to let strangers into or chains and locks an as do em no warning th rity measures such cu effective se . s: call for help vice to people include you don’t know Police ad the door to callers en s · Never op e a door safety chain check it carefully e for repair d us s ay lw A · tification an n’t let them in or quot ll police. en id r fo k · Always as calls unexpectedly, do you may be at risk,ca el · If someone any suspicions, or fe · If you have
Come across any rogue tree surgeons? ..... send your photo’s and stories to dal@totalarb.co.uk We will be scrutinising this area of our industry and value your opinions
d First publishe
January 2008
both been A resident and a contractor have pruning trees lly tica dras for up’ ‘pay to ordered permission ’s ncil Cou rict without Lichfield Dist who damaged Mr C Banks, a Little Aston resident out Lichfield with en gard his in tree Oak a protected £2,000 fined been has District Council’s consent, by 00 £2,5 over of s cost pay to red and orde 5. Tamworth Magistrates on February te in Little Many of the trees in the private esta tion Orders. erva Pres Tree by cted prote Aston are ntry Cou and Town It is an offence under the cted prote any ve remo or e prun to Act Planning ent. cons ’s ority tree without the local auth of The tree, on Squirrel Walk, was part for over 40 woodland that had been protected s. Recognising years and it was destroyed within hour Magistrate ordered the , area the in the importance of trees tree in the garden Oak ent cem repla a t plan to ers the own on top of paying a fine. worth’s Magistrates In a second case, also heard at Tam r was prosecuted racto cont tree a 5, uary Febr court on Lombard Street, on tree Oak for drastically pruning an from the Council. tion orisa auth ng getti out with Lichfield was prosecuted under Mr Raymond Higgins of ‘Tree Care’ Planning Act. He ntry Cou and section 211 of the Town a further £15 and s cost 0 23.8 £1,3 plus £500 was fined s. work sed thori unau victim surcharge for the which is within the The court found that the Oak tree, lly damaged’ and ‘wilfu was , Area ation serv Con Lichfield pired that Mr trans also It ver. reco will take a long time to ssary certificates nece the out with ating oper was Higgins and without public of competence for chainsaw work e. ranc insu liability ins that he must take Tamworth Magistrates told Mr Higg sed work and, in thori unau the for a heavy responsibility d him to carry aske who der ehol hous the of nce the abse plus half of the fine the pay to him out the works, ordered Council’s costs. ber for Development Councillor Neil Roberts, Cabinet Mem cting the prote with ged char Services, said: “We are an attractive place it keep to ing help age, herit ict’s distr there are trees and to live and work as well as ensuring enjoy. So, we are to ns ratio gene e futur for ds dlan woo s. It gives a clear case e thes of lt delighted with the resu tree surgeons and message to developers, tree owners of Tree ches brea s take ncil Cou that Lichfield District ” usly. serio very rs Orde tion erva Pres ict Council for this We would like to thank Lichfield Distr 2008 uary Febr story. First published
Employment of rogue tree surgeon leads to prosecution of Aldwick man
Arun residents are carry out unauthoris being warned not to He added: “We have ed lost a great Beech trees following the pro work on protected tree that had absolut secution of a local ma ely nothing wrong n. because of the Aldwick resident Ra with it se people. Hopefully lphAnsley was given a 12-month co oth ers lea will rn fro m this case an nditional discharge and ordered to pay procedures in future d follow the proper £200 costs at Chich .” ester Magistrates Court (6 Ian Brewster, an Ar Feb guilty to ordering the ruary) after pleading Arun, said that apart boricultural Officer for topping and loppin from doing conside g of a damage to beech tree in his ga rable a perfectly good tre rden. e,the resident The incident came wa s wr on g to hire some to light on 31August 2007 when a memb they had professiona one without checking er ofArun Council’s l qualifications or sa tree staff spotted a man eq fety uipment. on a ladder propped against the tree in “Not only was dama a dangerous position ging this tree . On further investig against the law, it wa ation,the Council s also extremely discovered that an dangerous for both unlicensed man,coldthe public and the calling under the na man carrying out the wo me of‘Manor House rk,” he said. Tree Care of Reading’,ha “Tree surgery is a sp d been employed by ecialist service the resident to cut down that should on a large part of a tre e on surgeons wi ly be carried out by qualified his property within anArea Tree Preserva th the proper expertis tion e, insurance Order (TPO). cover and equipme nt.The man who ca rried It is a criminal offen ou t thi s wo rk was observed to ha ce to do works to ve no safety such trees without harness, protective Council approval an clo thi ng or helmet and d the offence can carry a used a washing lin fine of up to £20,000 e to pull down branc . Both the person wh hes. “It is also highly likely tha o authorises the wo t if he rk and the person wh damaged any prope o carries it out can rty , be prosecuted. someone, that he an or worse, injured d the owner of the tre The resident was su e wo uld no t be covered by pro mmoned to court per indemnity and, even though he insurance.” pleaded ignorance about the existence of the The man who carri TPO, was prosecuted ed out this work for his actions. was not prosecuted as he was untraceab Councillor Ricky Bow le, er, Cabinet Member despite attempts to track him down. for Planning, said: “Ig Un au tho norance is no defen rised works to a pro ce. tected tree Preservation orders carries a fine of up are placed on trees to £2 for very good reasons sum can increase dra 0,000.However this and it is the respons matically if it can be ibility demonstra of any person who ted that the damage wishes to carry out tree or loss of a work to check with tre e would be profitable the LocalAuthority for the individuals first. “TPOs are there to inv olv ed . retain natural amenities for the be Any residents inten nefit of everyone, no ding to employ a t just for the individu tree surgeon are alw al on whose land it ays advised to chec rests. We expect these pe k their qualifications ople to be aware of and current indemnit it an to apply for permiss y ion to the Council in d insurance. the correct way or face We would like to tha the consequences.” nk Arun Council for this story.
s r e p o l e v e D
Company fined for e e tr d te c te ro p g in y o tr s e d
rk on an oak tree d out unauthorised wo A company that carrie £4,500 following a ed vation Order was fin ser Pre e Tre a by ted protec rough Council. on by Amber Valley Bo successful prosecuti use Ltd, entered a guilty Director of Trafalgar Ho ing nag trates’ Ma , wn Bro t ber Ro uthern Derbyshire Magis pany at the hearing at So ts. plea on behalf of the com cos 500 s also ordered to pay £2, lper. The Court. The company wa 16 Chatham Court in Be of den gar the in d ate ril 2007. He was Ap in The tree is loc tree the t the property to inspec ited vis cer Offi tected tree e pro Tre a il’s to Counc carried out because work had been t had been tha rk wo the immediately concerned ar cle the Council, and it was from tion y had been isa the hor g aut t win withou re white, sho r standard. The cuts we weight of the by sed cau done was of a very poo tree re were large tears to the the and ly, ent rec y ver done here the branches falling. Borough Council said “W Officer at Amber Valley ape dsc ble Lan era al, sid Be con ris a Ch Council is at carried out to trees, the what unauthorised works are result; they do not know end the see y onl s cer offi e e aus cam s bec our age ghb ant disadv e, several nei beforehand. In this cas about the ed riev agg so condition the tree was in felt y the ness evidence because forward and provided wit . y tree the to se proceedings they onl damage caused t all the way through the tha ed d vid sai pro has ce e den enc evi def e the “Th tree, but hollow branches from the out to the ried car rks wo removed a few dead and the ly, es that and, most certain ctice. In this case, it by the neighbours disput h good arboricultural pra wit e anc ord ard acc in e tree were not don the branches, with no reg just taken a chainsaw to had e eon som t tha ar cle was works. recommendations for tree for the British Standard ours who came forward ghb nei the all nk tha to like ally eci esp uld wo e “W secure a guilty plea from l evidence that helped us a warning to anyone and provided the crucia prosecution will serve as this ully gh.” pef Ho . ant end the def tected trees in the Borou unauthorised work on pro land Tree Mid from t tan considering carrying out sul con yed an arboricultural The Council also emplo nion:. He stated that in his opi tree the e min Surgeons to exa r, Tree Preservation Orde well established, • the tree was T42 on the have been mature and uld wo so ld, rs o yea 00 • it is about a 1 the order was made, way accords about 70 years old, when brutal pruning which in no nd re a eve to s ed ect ubj • it has been s ral practice, and has effectively been with modern arboricultu ited biological function, it e lim om g s inin eta till r • despite it s n destroyed, it is not destroyed. er for a tree to have bee ord in t tha tes sta s less tree The law on have been rendered use obliterate it, but it must tely ple com to ary ess nec ething worth as an amenity or as som certainly the st mo is s Thi g. vin ser pre Come across any . tree case for this oak
rogue tree surgeons/ developers? ..... send your photo’s and stories to dal@eworldoftrees.com We will be scrutinising this area of our industry and value your opinions
T R U O C G N I K GROUNDBREAEVELOPER CASE SEES D TO FELLING Y T L I U G D A E PL ES E R T D E T C E T PRO
‘Stunning result’
welcomed by Green Cllr Amy Kennedy
Fine for destroying protected 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 have to pay more than £4,000 in fines and costs after pleading guilty to the offence in Moss Lane, Pinner, in November. 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. Presenting a letter sent to him by Village Homes at Harrow 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.” Presiding magistrate Adam Reubens dismissed his excuse. 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 sacked over it, a spokesman said: “No comment”. Harrow Observer series www.harrowobserver.co.uk
Bridgetown Propertie s have pleaded guilty to felling seven protected trees at a site adjacent to Ansto n House in Preston Ro Brighton last year. ad, The case, the first of its kind to be brought City Council since its by Brighton & Hove inception more than a decade ago, will no go to the Crown Court w for sentencing. The Crown Court’s powe punishment are signifi rs of cantly greater than tho se of the Magistrates so Bridgetown Prope , rties may well face su bstantial fines. Green Cllr Amy Kenn edy, who last year pre sented the council with a petition signe d by almost 600 local residents calling for prosecution, said: this “This is a stunning result, and will send shockwave property development. s through the world of “Not only is this the firs t time Brighton & Hove council has pursued a prosecution under a Tre e Preservation Order, the decision by Magistrates pass the case up to the to Crown Court means Bri dgetown may well face more than the usual sm far all-change fine for this kind of illegal act. “Typically, the maximum punishment for destroyin to rogue property develo g listed trees is peanuts pers - many simply factor in the cost of the fine in their plans rather than obe y the law in the first pla ce. “But the Crown Court’s powers of punishment are significantly greater than those of the Magis trates court. The senten cing hearing, to be held in January, could well ma ke future property develo pers think twice before destroying preserved tre es. “Bridgetown properties ’ decision to plead guilty, after almost 600 residents signed a petitio n calling for this prosec ution, is testament to the months of tireless work from officers in gathering evidence. “Brighton & Hove enforc ement officers have wo rked their socks off to get it to this stage, and I hope this will restore som e of the public’s faith in how the local authority deals with unscrupulous developers who breach planning permission, as their they’ve done an excelle nt job on this.”
GREEN CL ‘LENIENTLR CRITICISES F E DEVELOP INE’ FOR UPDAT ER GUILT KILLING Y OF PRESERV ED TREES
Bridgetown Propertie s, a Surrey-based property development company, and its dir ector Timothy Harding, were last mo nth handed fines totalling £30,000 for felling five protected trees at a site adjacent to Anston House in Pre ston Road, Brighton in June 2007. Bridgetown and Hardi ng 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 bank ruptcy on Monday January 19th, three days before sentencing was to be made. The law
a World of Trees Issue 18
required that the jud ge take this into consideration when imposing a fine. Green Cllr Amy Kenn edy said: “I can’t help but wonde r at Tim Harding’s decision to file for bankru ptcy, especially this week.
“The judge could well hav e handed down a far higher fine, but wa s obliged to consider Harding’s apparent fina ncial situation. “I am disappointed tha t 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 pow erful message to rogue developers that Brighton & Hove City Council will not tolerate the delibe rate and calculated destruction of protected trees in the city. “Not only is this the firs t time Brighton & Hove council has pursue d a prosecution under
a Tree Preservation Ord er, the decision by Magistrates to pass the case up to the Crown Court ensured Bridgetow n 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 jus t peanuts to big developers - many sim ply factor in the cost of the fine in their plans rath er than obey the law in the first place. “The law needs to be rev isited, with the statutory fine raised to a level which creates a real deterrent against destroying protected trees.”
s r e p o l e v e D
Company fined for e e tr d te c te ro p g in y o tr s e d
rk on an oak tree d out unauthorised wo A company that carrie £4,500 following a ed vation Order was fin ser Pre e Tre a by ted protec rough Council. on by Amber Valley Bo successful prosecuti use Ltd, entered a guilty Director of Trafalgar Ho ing nag trates’ Ma , wn Bro t ber Ro uthern Derbyshire Magis pany at the hearing at So ts. plea on behalf of the com cos 500 s also ordered to pay £2, lper. The Court. The company wa 16 Chatham Court in Be of den gar the in d ate ril 2007. He was Ap in The tree is loc tree the t the property to inspec ited vis cer Offi tected tree e pro Tre a il’s to Counc carried out because work had been t had been tha rk wo the immediately concerned ar cle the Council, and it was from tion y had been isa the hor g aut t win withou re white, sho r standard. The cuts we weight of the by sed cau done was of a very poo tree re were large tears to the the and ly, ent rec y ver done here the branches falling. Borough Council said “W Officer at Amber Valley ape dsc ble Lan era al, sid Be con ris a Ch Council is at carried out to trees, the what unauthorised works are result; they do not know end the see y onl s cer offi e e aus cam s bec our age ghb ant disadv e, several nei beforehand. In this cas about the ed riev agg so condition the tree was in felt y the ness evidence because forward and provided wit . y tree the to se proceedings they onl damage caused t all the way through the tha ed d vid sai pro has ce e den enc evi def e the “Th tree, but hollow branches from the out to the ried car rks wo removed a few dead and the ly, es that and, most certain ctice. In this case, it by the neighbours disput h good arboricultural pra wit e anc ord ard acc in e tree were not don the branches, with no reg just taken a chainsaw to had e eon som t tha ar cle was works. recommendations for tree for the British Standard ours who came forward ghb nei the all nk tha to like ally eci esp uld wo e “W secure a guilty plea from l evidence that helped us a warning to anyone and provided the crucia prosecution will serve as this ully gh.” pef Ho . ant end the def tected trees in the Borou unauthorised work on pro land Tree Mid from t tan considering carrying out sul con yed an arboricultural The Council also emplo nion:. He stated that in his opi tree the e min Surgeons to exa r, Tree Preservation Orde well established, • the tree was T42 on the have been mature and uld wo so ld, rs o yea 00 • it is about a 1 the order was made, way accords about 70 years old, when brutal pruning which in no nd re a eve to s ed ect ubj • it has been s ral practice, and has effectively been with modern arboricultu ited biological function, it e lim om g s inin eta till r • despite it s n destroyed, it is not destroyed. er for a tree to have bee ord in t tha tes sta s less tree The law on have been rendered use obliterate it, but it must tely ple com to ary ess nec ething worth as an amenity or as som certainly the st mo is s Thi g. vin ser pre Come across any . tree case for this oak
rogue tree surgeons/ developers? ..... send your photo’s and stories to dal@eworldoftrees.com We will be scrutinising this area of our industry and value your opinions
T R U O C G N I K GROUNDBREAEVELOPER CASE SEES D TO FELLING Y T L I U G D A E PL ES E R T D E T C E T PRO
‘Stunning result’
welcomed by Green Cllr Amy Kennedy
Fine for destroying protected 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 have to pay more than £4,000 in fines and costs after pleading guilty to the offence in Moss Lane, Pinner, in November. 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. Presenting a letter sent to him by Village Homes at Harrow 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.” Presiding magistrate Adam Reubens dismissed his excuse. 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 sacked over it, a spokesman said: “No comment”. Harrow Observer series www.harrowobserver.co.uk
Bridgetown Propertie s have pleaded guilty to felling seven protected trees at a site adjacent to Ansto n House in Preston Ro Brighton last year. ad, The case, the first of its kind to be brought City Council since its by Brighton & Hove inception more than a decade ago, will no go to the Crown Court w for sentencing. The Crown Court’s powe punishment are signifi rs of cantly greater than tho se of the Magistrates so Bridgetown Prope , rties may well face su bstantial fines. Green Cllr Amy Kenn edy, who last year pre sented the council with a petition signe d by almost 600 local residents calling for prosecution, said: this “This is a stunning result, and will send shockwave property development. s through the world of “Not only is this the firs t time Brighton & Hove council has pursued a prosecution under a Tre e Preservation Order, the decision by Magistrates pass the case up to the to Crown Court means Bri dgetown may well face more than the usual sm far all-change fine for this kind of illegal act. “Typically, the maximum punishment for destroyin to rogue property develo g listed trees is peanuts pers - many simply factor in the cost of the fine in their plans rather than obe y the law in the first pla ce. “But the Crown Court’s powers of punishment are significantly greater than those of the Magis trates court. The senten cing hearing, to be held in January, could well ma ke future property develo pers think twice before destroying preserved tre es. “Bridgetown properties ’ decision to plead guilty, after almost 600 residents signed a petitio n calling for this prosec ution, is testament to the months of tireless work from officers in gathering evidence. “Brighton & Hove enforc ement officers have wo rked their socks off to get it to this stage, and I hope this will restore som e of the public’s faith in how the local authority deals with unscrupulous developers who breach planning permission, as their they’ve done an excelle nt job on this.”
GREEN CL ‘LENIENTLR CRITICISES F E DEVELOP INE’ FOR UPDAT ER GUILT KILLING Y OF PRESERV ED TREES
Bridgetown Propertie s, a Surrey-based property development company, and its dir ector Timothy Harding, were last mo nth handed fines totalling £30,000 for felling five protected trees at a site adjacent to Anston House in Pre ston Road, Brighton in June 2007. Bridgetown and Hardi ng 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 bank ruptcy on Monday January 19th, three days before sentencing was to be made. The law
required that the jud ge take this into consideration when imposing a fine. Green Cllr Amy Kenn edy said: “I can’t help but wonde r at Tim Harding’s decision to file for bankru ptcy, especially this week.
“The judge could well hav e handed down a far higher fine, but wa s obliged to consider Harding’s apparent fina ncial situation. “I am disappointed tha t 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 pow erful message to rogue developers that Brighton & Hove City Council will not tolerate the delibe rate and calculated destruction of protected trees in the city. “Not only is this the firs t time Brighton & Hove council has pursue d a prosecution under
a Tree Preservation Ord er, the decision by Magistrates to pass the case up to the Crown Court ensured Bridgetow n 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 jus t peanuts to big developers - many sim ply factor in the cost of the fine in their plans rath er than obey the law in the first place. “The law needs to be rev isited, with the statutory fine raised to a level which creates a real deterrent against destroying protected trees.”
L I C N U O C F F I D CAR R E D A R T E U G O R PROSECUTES
who cuted a rogue trader s successfully prose ha s ssively ce ard ex nd for Sta g ed let din ning work comp rde Cardiff Council’s Tra ga g vin ha o int g pensioners pleaded guilty to dupin ence under Section 14 high prices. Fraud Act 2006, one off the r de rk at un s ce en off r fou the price charged for wo James Janes admitted r offence of increasing the fur a d an 68 19 t Ac s of the Trade Description s totalling more on October 5th. urt Co tes tra gis Ma ff was ordered to pay fine rdi ff, Ca rdi Ca in rk Pa an rav wton Ca t by Mr Janes and his Mr Janes, from Shirene that had been carried ou rk wo g nin ons and rde ga to d s relate Michael Ross Tree Surge than £500. The offence James Tree Surgeons, Mr false of g s kin me ma na y Cit ess sin tributed across the dis re associates under the bu we es ess sin bu s. Flyers for all Trades registered. John Elliott Tree Surgeon re fully insured and Fair we s’ on rge e gardeners’ aggressive Su ee ‘Tr claims that the the initial quotation. Th ing low fol r d ate infl en oft rised into having furthe Prices for the work were l intimidated and pressu fee the to m rs fro me 40 nsu £2 co ra le ext rab to recover an behaviour caused vulne quotation se, Mr Janes attempted 0 ca £8 e a on ce In . tan ed ins let er mp oth co unnecessary work tten labour costs”. In an iming that he had “forgo agreed price of £390 cla l Justice said: . ities, Housing and Socia un mm Co rose to a final bill of £360 for er mb Me son to traders man, Executive outcome should be a les the d Councillor Judith Wood an ff rdi Ca in ted continuing to work will not be tolera g Standards officers are din “This type of behaviour Tra y. wa s thi in ess me.” uct busin idences of Doorstep Cri who still choose to cond te rogue traders and inc best to employ a ina ally elim to usu is lice “It Po d: the de h ad closely wit mer Protection nsu Co r ge na do not buy from Ma er l na mb tio me le to inspect. Re ab Dave Holland, Opera en be ve ha u yo rk y, or someone they or whose wo . If anyone thinks that the ne tradesman that you know do be ding to rk wo for in advance ident is reported to Tra the door and don’t pay is important that the inc it r, de tra ue rog a of victim know, may have been a umer Direct lice.” Po the r d/o an s in their area to Cons ard me cri Stand tep ors do of . incidents lsh speaking operator Residents can report 454 04 05 05 for a We 08 or 06 05 04 4 45 Wales on 08
“
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.uk We will be scrutinising this area of our industry and value your opinions
TArb 26-27 Rogue.indd 1
10/9/08 17:43:08
R
y
Three prosecuted for Ferring tree offence
Arun residents are be ing warned not to ca rry out unauthorised work on protected trees follow ing the prosecution of three local people. Tree surgeon Steve Wa dey of Middleton-on -Sea was given a 12-mon th conditional discharg e and ordered to pay £250 costs at Worthing Ma gistrates Court on Monday (16 June) after pleading guilty to ordering the fellin g of a Corsican pine tree at Beehive Lane in Ferri ng. The incident came to light in September 20 when a member of the 07 public reported the wo rks to the Council’s Complia nce Team. On further investigati on, the Council disco vered that Mr Wadey had be en employed by the property owner to cut down a large tree at the front of her property. The tre e was covered by a Tre e Preservation Order (TP O). It is a criminal offence to do works to such trees without Council approval and the off ence can carry a fine of up to £20,000. Both the pe rson who authorises the work and the person who carries it out can be prosecuted . The land owner instru cted her gardener to out the works but the carry gardener instructed the tree surgeon, Mr Wadey. All three were summ oned to court as it is offence to both carry out the works and order that the works be carried out. The owner and garde ner pleaded guilty an d were both given complete discharges at an earlie r hearing which Mr Wadey failed to attend. Councillor Ricky Bowe r, Cabinet Member for Planning, said: “Pres ervation orders are pla ced on trees for very good rea sons and it is the res ponsibility of any person who wishes to carry out tre e work to check with the Lo cal Authority first. “TPOs are there to ret ain natural amenitie s for the benefit of everyon e, not just for the ind ividual on whose land it res ts. 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 absolut ely nothing wrong wi th it because of these pe ople. Hopefully others will learn from this case and fol low the proper proce dures in future.” Unauthorised works to a protected tree ca rries a fine of up to £20,0 00. However this sum can increase dramaticall y if it can be demons trated that the damage or loss of a tree would be profi table for the individuals involv ed. The Council will ensure that an appropriate tree is replanted.
ion
aid: s
m y ng
TArb 26-27 Rogue.indd 2
10/9/08 17:42:18
ted u c e s o r p t n e id s e r l Loca amage d l a t n e m n o ir v n e r fo estigation Following a recent inv uncil, Co gh rou by Chelmsford Bo urt has Co tes tra gis Ma rd Chelmsfo £120 s plu 50 £7 imposed a fine of n who ma rd sfo elm Ch a costs on ed works on carried out unauthoris trees in the r pla Po d’ cte ote three ‘pr Springfield area. by a Tree These trees are protected that no ans me ich wh Preservation Order, ou carried t on them work is permitted to be consent from the or pri in any way, without Council. responded The Council’s Tree Officer ph tele one call from immediately following a June 2007, who in blic a member of the pu allegedly been reported that works had cer visited the site Offi e carried out. The Tre ber of branches and discovered that a num the trees to uce red to d had been remove les’. The Officers little more than ‘totem po w with the owner rvie inte then carried out an tely were unable of the trees, but unfortuna abouts of the ere wh or n to trace the locatio out the work on ry car to yed plo em person f. the owner’s behal orised works Carrying out any unauth e, and it was enc off an is to protected trees
il acted important that the Counc ht to ug bro s wa e when this cas es are cas er Oth . ion ent att ir the , including now being investigated rd in hea be to is ich wh e cas a . rch Ma of end court at the Council A Chelmsford Borough uncil is pleased Co e “Th d: sai n spokeswoma ution in sec pro with the outcome of this out a clear ds sen It . urt Co tes the Magistra uld consult sho y the t message to people tha wit ahead h works the Council before going o help to make als l wil to protected trees. It of unscrupulous tree owners more aware e tree surgeons a uin operators who give gen bad name.”
Tree Officer visited the site and yland Cypress discovered that two Le d. The Officer trees had been remove ner of the trees ow the then interviewed the necessary who was fully aware of d that he knew tte mi ad d procedures, an Council before the he should have notified rk. wo performing any sful This is the second succes t en rough Council rec Bo er rd oth sfo an elm ng Ch Followi prosecution by gh rou Bo rd number sfo a are elm re investigation by Ch within a month, and the sford elm currently s Ch tion rs, ce iga fi est Of e inv Council Tre of further related ne fi a d se po im s ha Magistrates Court erway. on another local und Council of £500 plus £60 costs A Chelmsford Borough o carried out another success is is “Th d: sai n ma wo man Alan Gowers, wh spokes within the es tre this will y to full rks pe wo ho ed and unauthoris for the Council a. Are on is a criminal ati it t erv tha Margaretting Cons re-enforce the message ponded res without going cer rk Offi e wo of Tre t il’s sor unc this The Co m a offence to do fro l cal e on ph tele ls.” a nne immediately following through the proper cha August 2007. The member of the public in
Man charged with false represe
A man has appeared before magistrates in Newt on 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 lad y was expecting a visit from a local firm of tree surgeons. The men posing as the began to carry out work legitimate firm on the After ringing the firm she garden. had booked to do the work to check it was revealed that the workers were not affi liated The lady confronted the to the firm. men, realising they had been found ou t the two men made off after being pa id by the resident, making good their esc ape in a distinctively marked vehicle. Police were called and the incident was recorded as a crime un der the new fraud
Rogue 28-29.indd 1
act introduced in 2006 . The following Tuesday (8th April) PCSO Michelle Williamson on duty in Willington noticed a vehicle fitting the that used in the Willingto description of n offence and two men who also fitted the bill. Police attended and the men were arrested, after further inv estigation and interview by Crook CID one male was charged with false rep resentation, theft and motoring offences. The second male was released without charge . The man was placed be fore Newton Aycliffe Magistrates Co urt and remanded in custody. D/Sgt Neil Edgar of Cro “I would recommend tha ok CID said, t residents only commision work with rep utable companies and by pre-arranged ap pointment. When workers do attend you r home make sure you check their identit y and if you are
ntation offence
unsure check with the company involved.” “Quite often these types of criminals prey on the elderly and vulnerable,” added the sergeant.
Follow on
Michael McDonough of Carlisle, appeared before Du rham Crown Court on 10/4/2008 and after having pleaded guilty to off ences of making false representation to make gain for himself or another an d theft he was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. He was also dealt wi th for motoring offences for which he was disqualified from driving for a tot al of 12 months.
10/9/08 17:44:17