Home owner fined for damaging tree
Discussion
I tend to think that if it's your own garden you should be able to cut down what are effectively 'your' trees if you want to.
I disagree with being forced to keep and maintain something that is in your own garden, at your own expense, just because other people want to look at it. Those people aren't the ones having to pay for maintaining it, to or deal with the damage it may be causing to your property.
Look at the size of it in the photos. It absolutely dwarfs the entire house. I wouldn't want a creaking, groaning 90 year old tree constantly threatening to drop onto my property.
This is what happens when councils dig their heels in and refuse home owners permission to cut down stupidly large and old trees in their gardens:
"Father's fury as massive 70ft trees collapse in his garden after the council banned him from chopping them down safely because they complemented the area"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4200094/F...
I disagree with being forced to keep and maintain something that is in your own garden, at your own expense, just because other people want to look at it. Those people aren't the ones having to pay for maintaining it, to or deal with the damage it may be causing to your property.
Look at the size of it in the photos. It absolutely dwarfs the entire house. I wouldn't want a creaking, groaning 90 year old tree constantly threatening to drop onto my property.
This is what happens when councils dig their heels in and refuse home owners permission to cut down stupidly large and old trees in their gardens:
"Father's fury as massive 70ft trees collapse in his garden after the council banned him from chopping them down safely because they complemented the area"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4200094/F...
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 23 December 13:22
Lord Marylebone said:
I tend to think that if it's your own garden you should be able to cut down what are effectively 'your' trees if you want to.
I disagree with being forced to keep and maintain something that is in your own garden, at your own expense, just because other people want to look at it. Those people aren't the ones having to pay for maintaining it, to or deal with the damage it may be causing to your property.
Look at the size of it in the photos. It absolutely dwarfs the entire house. I wouldn't want a creaking, groaning 90 year old tree constantly threatening to drop onto my property.
So why did he buy the house?I disagree with being forced to keep and maintain something that is in your own garden, at your own expense, just because other people want to look at it. Those people aren't the ones having to pay for maintaining it, to or deal with the damage it may be causing to your property.
Look at the size of it in the photos. It absolutely dwarfs the entire house. I wouldn't want a creaking, groaning 90 year old tree constantly threatening to drop onto my property.
Buys a Grade 2 listed property in a conservation area with a big tree with TPO already in the garden.
Trys twice to have it taken down. Starts damaging it to make it die,
gets warned not to damage it, but then carries on damaging it. Gets fined.
Not so much sympathy from me.
Trys twice to have it taken down. Starts damaging it to make it die,
gets warned not to damage it, but then carries on damaging it. Gets fined.
Not so much sympathy from me.
Edited by the tribester on Monday 23 December 13:38
whilst i think he's a tree murderer and should get a shoeing for killing such a grand old tree......
if it had been just off his property the council would have cut it down because they were scared of an insurance claim should a passerby on the pavement be injured by a twig falling. Like they have with tens of thousands of other trees.
if it had been just off his property the council would have cut it down because they were scared of an insurance claim should a passerby on the pavement be injured by a twig falling. Like they have with tens of thousands of other trees.
Evanivitch said:
Lord Marylebone said:
I tend to think that if it's your own garden you should be able to cut down what are effectively 'your' trees if you want to.
I disagree with being forced to keep and maintain something that is in your own garden, at your own expense, just because other people want to look at it. Those people aren't the ones having to pay for maintaining it, to or deal with the damage it may be causing to your property.
Look at the size of it in the photos. It absolutely dwarfs the entire house. I wouldn't want a creaking, groaning 90 year old tree constantly threatening to drop onto my property.
So why did he buy the house?I disagree with being forced to keep and maintain something that is in your own garden, at your own expense, just because other people want to look at it. Those people aren't the ones having to pay for maintaining it, to or deal with the damage it may be causing to your property.
Look at the size of it in the photos. It absolutely dwarfs the entire house. I wouldn't want a creaking, groaning 90 year old tree constantly threatening to drop onto my property.
The fine that has been handed to him is his own fault, no doubt about that, but it doesn't stop me thinking the council are idiots.
As someone else has just said above, if that tree was on council land they would have felled it years ago due to being frightened it would fall on someone, but apparently it's fine to let huge trees come crashing down in peoples gardens and onto their houses.
TTmonkey said:
whilst i think he's a tree murderer and should get a shoeing for killing such a grand old tree......
if it had been just off his property the council would have cut it down because they were scared of an insurance claim should a passerby on the pavement be injured by a twig falling. Like they have with tens of thousands of other trees.
Agree - he shouldn't have done it, but some councils have done far far worse.if it had been just off his property the council would have cut it down because they were scared of an insurance claim should a passerby on the pavement be injured by a twig falling. Like they have with tens of thousands of other trees.
Agreed with OP, should have kept the fine at £90k.
Buy a home that is listed/and/or has TPO orders within the grounds and you are effectively the custodian for future generations to enjoy the house/grounds. Those that do not want that responsibility should avoid the purchase of same.
Buy a home that is listed/and/or has TPO orders within the grounds and you are effectively the custodian for future generations to enjoy the house/grounds. Those that do not want that responsibility should avoid the purchase of same.
Lord Marylebone said:
Look at the size of it in the photos. It absolutely dwarfs the entire house. I wouldn't want a creaking, groaning 90 year old tree constantly threatening to drop onto my property.
I'm with you on this. I once owned a lovely house that was blighted by a huge tree. The neighbours had managed to get their front ones removed. But because mine was special (as in ridicously huge) there was little chance of it being removed. Ideally it would be on a case-by-case basis (taking into account how it affects neighbouring properties) rather then waiting for the tree to die or fall over and destroy a home.ash73 said:
£60k fine is way OTT, get some perspective.
Tree was an eyesore, surely he could have found more subtle ways to kill it.
Magistrate perhaps a tree lover and pals with the CEO of Council ?Tree was an eyesore, surely he could have found more subtle ways to kill it.
Fine sets an example to others who believe that they are above the law or it does not apply to them.
I hope that the offender is ordered to plant a replacement Cedar tree in its place
Lord Marylebone said:
Because I presume he thought he could cut it down to size or remove it should he need to. He maybe wasn't aware of the TPO or maybe his solicitor never mentioned it when the purchase was going through.
The fine that has been handed to him is his own fault, no doubt about that, but it doesn't stop me thinking the council are idiots.
As someone else has just said above, if that tree was on council land they would have felled it years ago due to being frightened it would fall on someone, but apparently it's fine to let huge trees come crashing down in peoples gardens and onto their houses.
If he'd done the slightest bit of research before buying a listed property, he know that there are massive restrictions affecting what he can and can't do to the place. Many agents make sure potential buyers are aware of this - certainly the agent we bought through did.The fine that has been handed to him is his own fault, no doubt about that, but it doesn't stop me thinking the council are idiots.
As someone else has just said above, if that tree was on council land they would have felled it years ago due to being frightened it would fall on someone, but apparently it's fine to let huge trees come crashing down in peoples gardens and onto their houses.
Entirely his fault if he didn't do basic research.
It is/was a superb tree, with no issues from the photos and at 90 years old, is in no danger of going anywhere suddenly. Were it an Ash tree, then there is a decent case, but to lose a superb Cedar is just wrong. If there were a shading issue, even with a TPO, you can still do some crown reduction work on it.
ash73 said:
£60k fine is way OTT, get some perspective.
Tree was an eyesore and a risk to the house, surely he could have found more subtle ways to kill it.
Why do you describe it as an eyesore? Its a tree, that's what they look like. Tree was an eyesore and a risk to the house, surely he could have found more subtle ways to kill it.
And why do you think its a risk to the house? Because its near to the house and therefore a risk? that's a rather short sighted argument.
The tree looks normal and healthy to me. It could probably have been there another 100 years or more. The tree would have outlived the owner for sure.
if we chopped down all trees that could fall on houses we'd be feked.
TTmonkey said:
ash73 said:
£60k fine is way OTT, get some perspective.
Tree was an eyesore and a risk to the house, surely he could have found more subtle ways to kill it.
Why do you describe it as an eyesore? Its a tree, that's what they look like. Tree was an eyesore and a risk to the house, surely he could have found more subtle ways to kill it.
And why do you think its a risk to the house? Because its near to the house and therefore a risk? that's a rather short sighted argument.
The tree looks normal and healthy to me. It could probably have been there another 100 years or more. The tree would have outlived the owner for sure.
if we chopped down all trees that could fall on houses we'd be feked.
property in the form of ‘land heave’. That Cedar has been sucking moisture from the grounds, obviously that is no more which could well cause problems. I believe Chelmsford is a ‘clay ground’ area.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff