Tycoon fined over wood damage

[PeterH]

From BBC website Edinburgh Woollen Mill boss Philip Day fined over wood damage
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-23550956

 

[ex-member BareThrills]

Nice to see action taken.

Some would argue you can do what you want on your own land without permission or consequnce. As this guy is loaded i imagine the view will be different.

 

[rik_uk3]

The couple on another thread ignored the law and now face the consequences and its blooming good to see those with money getting hit too, whats good for one should be good for all.

A fella near us a few years ago bought a beautiful Victorian vicarage and 'updated it' (think tacky and you get the idea) but got permission for an (enclosed) outdoor pool but was denied permission to cut down some ancient woodland he owned that was blocking the sun from his pool. He sent a team in one Sunday morning and cut the lot down. He got stung in court for about £20k IIRC and when asked about the fine he just laughed and said it was worth every penny

 

[demographic]

To be fair to him he does do quite a lot for conservation in the area and I personally feel that the land is better under his care than it would be owned by many others.
I've worked in his house (before he owned it) and on several of the houses he owns so know the area quite well and I'd have to say that his stewardship is generally a good thing.

I also walk the dog through Gelt wood quite often and to put it all into perspective, there's a sand quarry and an excellent motocross track a hundred or so yards up hill from there.

Yeah, He's got a bob or two but I would bet he's done more good for conservation than most of us lot on here.

 

[boatman]

Yeah, He's got a bob or two but I would bet he's done more good for conservation than most of us lot on here.

Classic, mustn't criticise because by definition a rich person owning woodland must be a good conservator because after all he must be.
I daresay many on this forum would do better if they had the means but then most do no damage and positively clear-up etc within their abilities.

 

[Doc]

Apparently the damaging works were carried out without the landowners knowledge, and this was accepted by the prosecution. As it is a strict liability offence, he is still guilty, but it is a mitigating factor. What I don't understand is the claim that the works were necessary because of a landslip. I would have thought felling trees would make the land less stable, not more so. But I don't know all the details.

It is interesting that Natural England (correctly, in my view) took it all the way to a successful prosecution. Recently they were prosecuting a big estate over 43 alleged offences of damaging blanket bog. Mysteriously, the prosecution was dropped (after spending a lot of taxpayers money in legal bills), and Natural England have been refusing freedom of information requests about why. The RSPB are asking the European Commission to investigate.
http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/casework/details.aspx?id=tcm:9-326701

 

[demographic]

Classic, mustn't criticise because by definition a rich person owning woodland must be a good conservator because after all he must be.
I daresay many on this forum would do better if they had the means but then most do no damage and positively clear-up etc within their abilities.

By definition? Huh? Nope, lots of rich people do nothing at all for the environment or conservation but I happen to have spent quite a lot of time on and around that area and his estates and think that his care of the place has generally improved it a lot from what it was. Have you even seen the place?

His money has given him the chance to do more, that's a fact. Good on him. I don't have a chip on my shoulder over his cash
To some extent he might be setting things up for people shooting on his land but on balance its still a better place for him owning it than quite a few others I could think of.

Like I said, I know the area well and have even worked for about a year on houses that are now owned by his estate, that was before he bought his own home there but I've been back and worked on another house there (not for him so I don't have any vested interests at all, if I thought he was a pratt I'd say so) and walked round the area, even more recently my sister rented a holiday cottage on there when she was over from Australia. No connection in organising that stay there as she didn't even realise I'd ever been there before.

Anyway, all this has meant that I've spent quite a lot of time (perfectly legitimately) on his land and have noticed how well he looks after the grounds and woodland in the area.
Now, I'm quite sure that some of the work that he's done has been so the place is more attractive to shooters, but its still a better place for it.

 

[santaman2000]

Apparently the damaging works were carried out without the landowners knowledge, and this was accepted by the prosecution. As it is a strict liability offence, he is still guilty, but it is a mitigating factor. What I don't understand is the claim that the works were necessary because of a landslip. I would have thought felling trees would make the land less stable, not more so. But I don't know all the details......

I don't know the details either, but trees do sometimes cause instability. Particularly if the roots provide a means for running water to undermine the soil.

I have two medium pine trees on the dam of one of my ponds (it's a small pond, less than an acre) and we constantly have to repair the damage to the dam. I've put off cutting them as they've been there since I fished the pond with Daddy over 50 years ago. That said, sooner or later I'm going to have to decide which I want more, the trees or the pond. It's a no brainer really though as the trees will topple anyway if the dam gives way.