The World's gone mad yet again.

[cee-dee]

We've all seen people killed, maimed, paralysed by dangerous drivers and a variety of other wrong-doers who've escaped with paltry fines and slapped wrists but see what's happened here?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-23550956

Bloke cuts his own trees down and does some work for which he doesn't have "permission" and just look at the size of the fine?

Things like that can be re-done, trees can be re-planted along with other plants but you can't undo the damage done to the ruined lives of people.

It seems to me that the attitude there is "He's got it so we'll have a slice of that".

It's OK some criticising larger landowners but if it wasn't for them there wouldn't be such places because over time, (in times past) they've kept woodland as such rather than either clearing it for agriculture or clearing it to plant forestry for arboriculture.

[blackburn_stevie]

It does seem to be a bit strong doesn't it, especially when, if I have read it right, it looks like he made repairs to the land over 2 years before he was brought to court.

[cee-dee]

There will have had to have been an extensive "investigation" and estimates will have been made of how many cubic feet of timber will have been cut down without a Felling Licence.

You're "allowed" to cut down 5 cubic feet (I think) without felling licence and you're not supposed to drive a road through woodland without the appropriate "permission".

Also, you're supposed to get permission from the local Water Authority (Used to be the local River Board) before you make any alterations to a watercourse.

It's a lot of mucking about when you get embroiled in it.

[al**bear]

Come on CD , that isn't just someone, doing a little work

If even the Daily Mail, Times & Telegraph have a go at a Tycoon, you know he did wrong, and it was His intransigence that meant the case went on so long and to a higher court, that was the reason He was slapped with the costs,

He turned ancient woodland into a wasteland, he wrecked a whole river bank of protected fauna.

The area is also of major archaeological interest, for the Roman quarries that were used for stone to build Hadrians wall.

I may be mistaken, i'll try and find out, but I'm sure He left his previous residence in the Scottish borders, because the Council kept "interfering in His 'improvement' plans for that estate"

[al**bear]

How it used to look on the left

There was a path to His shoot, He wanted to be able to drive his guests there

[cee-dee]

People always try to show something new in the worst possible light.

The pics appear to show a completely barren landscaspe there, what will it look like when it's had chance to regenerate?

Have you ever owned land next to a watercourse? No? Well, the water at such a place wants to do its own thing and go where it likes. It looks to me as if there was room to drive vehicles until the water eroded the banks.

As I said above, much of the present landscape only exists because landowners maintain it as such. An unmanaged woodland doesn't take long to become a tangle of trees competing for light and growing upwards quickly making for trees with "all crown" and no branches. Before long, (30 years or so) you have loads of very tall trees with small diameter trunks which sooner (probably) or later (definitely) get blown down by the wind.

Then you get the ground covered by fallen trees with big gaps in the tree cover which allows the wind to get in to blow more trees down leaving an impenetrable mess which will take a very, very long time to grow back to a "natural" woodland comprised of a mix of mature trees and young stock. In the meantime, you have lots of the ground cover plants "up in the air" on the root-ball of the fallen trees so the ground cover is more or less destroyed for a time.

A completely natural woodland is very, very rare. Really, most "natural looking" woodland would only be classified as "Ancient, semi-natural woodland" because they've all had some sort of interference by Man.

OK, so ancient woodland needs protecting from either clear felling and conifer planting or tree felling willy-nilly but given a few years, what that bloke's done there will not only look very nice but will continue to be an attractive home for many species.

The size of the fine is out of proportion to the "crime" and is ridiculous when compared to the sentences handed out to people who've killed someone.

[cee-dee]

People in this country are far too ready to tell others what they should and shouldn't do with their own property. With woods, people want to walk through them, if there's a Public Foortpath through them, they want to ramble all over the place not stick to the footpath. I had one, I fenced it in to stop people wandering all over the place!!!!

You want to ramble all over a wood? Buy yer own!!

Now, compare what that bloke did to what's proposed here:-

http://news.sky.com/story/1123920/swansea-bay-tidal-lagoon-may-open-in-2017

I suppose that's OK is it?

[margaret*e]

I do think the fine is out of proportion, compared to the penalties for serious crimes against people.

On the other hand, is it a case of one law for the rich..............does he think he can do what he likes because of his wealth?.

Although I'm a bit puzzled as to why if it was his own land he's being fined so much.

[cee-dee]

Even if you own the land, you can't just cut trees down as you feel like it. Normally, you'd get a felling Licence from the Forestry Commission which would be granted after an inspection. The Licence would spell out what you were allowed to do. You might be "allowed" a 20% (possibly more) thin if the woodland hadn't been managed for a long time, that would probably be coupled with a programme of planting to provide some undergrowth for which you'd get a planting grant which would be coupled with a management grant. Yep, they'd pay you to manage your own woodland!

With sites designated as of Special Scientific Interest, there's different rules and regulations. I don't know anything about those "rules".