Scottish Power slaughter old trees
Apoplectic
I had a visit from a Scottish Power man a few weeks ago.
"We want to trim some of your trees that are under the power line" he said.
"We'll just be trimming the tops of the branches". "Oh, so not under 10
feet" I said. "Thats right", he replied, "Just sign here". I added the words
'not under 10 feet' to the consent form and signed it.
Nothing happened - until this week. I happened to be away when they did the
deed. I checked the site out today and was shocked, astonished, furious and
sad to find they had chopped down 31 separate trees (an estimated 50
separate trunks) to around ground level. Some of them would be quite old.
They were up to an estimated 12 inches diameter trunks. They are all Silver
Birch and I don't think they will grow again.
I like trees. I like having them on my land. These birches didn't even need
done as they were nowhere near the lines and had been trimmed back just a
few years ago. I am still furious and feel I have been tricked.
Can anyone tell me what the legal position is, or give advice?
--
emails welcome/remove NOSPAM to reply
Kevin
tomorrow morning, and a film crew and/or local paper tomorrow for
photographs and a very sad /annoyed environmental protecting owner
saying all the right things should get SP nicely embarassed etc etc.
Chris Mead
from "Apoplectic" <nice...@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> contains these words:
> I had a visit from a Scottish Power man a few weeks ago.
Hi there Apoplectic
I fear that the scenario is as follows:
SP decides that the trees along the line have not been trimmed for 15
years (say) and thus they need doing.
Office sends out forms.
You sign and endorse it.
It comes back and is filed.
We have all the forms in get the contractors in.
Contractors get the go ahead but no note of your endorsement.
Contractors get pauid by the amount they cut.
QED.
We had local electricity board come into a field where we had grazing
horses through the wire, chop dow trees unnecessarily and then burn
them in said field using two large tyres to start the fire. Loads of
wire in embers and fence totally cocked up. We had only a verbal
agreement with owner so no come bacl. We have full written
agreement now with £1 a year rent and would be able to do something about it.
Two suggestions:
1) These were a valued part of the landscape and not, in any way, a
hazard to your wires. Civic Trees will be approached for a quote to
replace them at your expence. I believe the going rate is about £300
each for transplantinmg trees of this size but i am not sure of their
costs for transporting their specialist equpment from their nearest
premises. I am prepared to make do with smaller trees, under
protest, and will acquire and plant these for £15 each. A cheque for
£750 would be appreciated forthwith.
2) I believe Scottish Power is a part of the consortium provid
renewable energy for the RSPB to sell. Sick the RSPB on them!
--
Chris Mead, Hilborough, Norfolk
chris...@zetnet.co.uk or chris...@farm-direct.co.uk
Visit www.farm-direct.co.uk/ to find your local farm gate outlets
Visit www.birdcare.com/birdon for bird information
Pa...@d&g.com
<nice...@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I like trees. I like having them on my land.
Somebody further along the line enjoys electricity and will be very
greatful it stays on in the next storm.
>These birches didn't even need
>done as they were nowhere near the lines
In your opinion
>and had been trimmed back just a
>few years ago. I am still furious and feel I have been tricked.
They did ours last winter and made a good job doing exactly what was
agreed and leaving me a few nice tidy stacks of logs.
>
>Can anyone tell me what the legal position is, or give advice?
>
>--
>emails welcome/remove NOSPAM to reply
>
>
Paul
Simon Avery
Hello Apoplectic
A> I like trees. I like having them on my land. These birches
A> didn't even need done as they were nowhere near the lines
A> and had been trimmed back just a few years ago. I am still
A> furious and feel I have been tricked.
You have been. As someone who used to do exactly this, albiet in a
somewhat more responsible manner, it's not that unusual.
The main priority as far as the power co is concerned is the clear the
risk of electrocution from the overheads and also to reduce the chance
of shorts. Typically any part of any tree within 4 metres. The lazy
contractors will remove the whole tree rather than climb and reduce -
they may not even have a qualified climber amongst them.
Next to that is to keep the hedges stockproof.
After that is appearance, and judging others contractors efforts, this
is something often ignored.
I contracted for SWEB and the process then was that we, the
contractors, would survey the line and gain permission from the
landowners. It sounds like your eleco is isolating the contractors
from your input, so it may not be their fault if they haven't been
told to "do the minimum".
A> Can anyone tell me what the legal position is, or give
A> advice?
uk.legal is your best bet, I'd have thought. Before and after photos
would be a useful tool.
--
Simon Avery, Devon, UK
http://www.s.avery.btinternet.co.uk/
Simon Avery
Hello Chris
CM> I fear that the scenario is as follows:
CM> SP decides that the trees along the line have not been
CM> trimmed for 15 years (say) and thus they need doing.
Scottish may be different from SWEB, but the above is reasonable. In
the SW trees grow faster so time differences are altered, and the
current setup is that the contractors get paid per span of overhead
regardless of work needed. Easier to account for.
CM> Contractors get the go ahead but no note of your
CM> endorsement.
That sounds possible.
CM> Contractors get pauid by the amount they cut.
Usually on an hourly basis. But note that it's quicker to fell a tree
and tidy up than it is to climb and reduce.
CM> We had local electricity board come into a field where we
CM> had grazing horses through the wire, chop dow trees
CM> unnecessarily and then burn them in said field using two
CM> large tyres to start the fire. Loads of wire in embers and
CM> fence totally cocked up.
Very bad practice. We always used inner tubes for starting because of
that problem, and tyres were specifically banned by the eleco's
contract - and this is going back 5-odd years.
Apoplectic
"Kevin" <Ho...@nospamthankyou.farmline.com> wrote in message
news:n9kq1t4v8vasd8k6c...@4ax.com...
Revenge would be sweet but I'd like more than their embarrassment.
Apoplectic
"Chris Mead" <chris...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:200011231...@zetnet.co.uk...
> The message <6fcT5.22737$8F2.3...@nnrp4.clara.net>
> from "Apoplectic" <nice...@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> contains these words:
>
> > I had a visit from a Scottish Power man a few weeks ago.
>
> Hi there Apoplectic
>
>
> years (say) and thus they need doing.
>
>
> You sign and endorse it.
>
> It comes back and is filed.
>
> We have all the forms in get the contractors in.
>
>
> Contractors get pauid by the amount they cut.
>
>
> We had local electricity board come into a field where we had grazing
> horses through the wire, chop dow trees unnecessarily and then burn
> them in said field using two large tyres to start the fire. Loads of
> wire in embers and fence totally cocked up. We had only a verbal
> agreement with owner so no come bacl. We have full written
> agreement now with £1 a year rent and would be able to do something about
it.
What a disgraceful way to operate. Did they clear up??
>
> Two suggestions:
>
> 1) These were a valued part of the landscape and not, in any way, a
> hazard to your wires. Civic Trees will be approached for a quote to
> replace them at your expence. I believe the going rate is about £300
> each for transplantinmg trees of this size but i am not sure of their
> costs for transporting their specialist equpment from their nearest
> premises. I am prepared to make do with smaller trees, under
> protest, and will acquire and plant these for £15 each. A cheque for
> £750 would be appreciated forthwith.
Yes. Replacement trees under the lines - or more likely in a new site seems
to me the most appropriate.
>
> 2) I believe Scottish Power is a part of the consortium provid
> renewable energy for the RSPB to sell. Sick the RSPB on them!
Really! RSPB sells electricity?! Do they have a particular interest in
conserving trees though.
Apoplectic
"Simon Avery" <SPAM.B.GO...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:9750...@f90.n255.z2.fidonet.org...
OK well thanks for that insight.
>
Apoplectic
<Paul@D&G.com> wrote in message news:3a1d7a5c...@news.clara.net...
> greatful it stays on in the next storm.
I'm sure they do enjoy it Paul but of what relevance is this here? The trees
were under or near the lines but were no more than half the height of the
poles. Storm or no storm they posed no conceivable threat - well into the
future. It is a steep bank and trees do not grow fast or tall there.
>
> >These birches didn't even need
> >done as they were nowhere near the lines
> In your opinion
> >and had been trimmed back just a
> >few years ago. I am still furious and feel I have been tricked.
>
> They did ours last winter and made a good job doing exactly what was
> agreed and leaving me a few nice tidy stacks of logs.
They cut these ones back a few years ago. They left a mess, but only trimmed
the branches then, so I was off guard and expecting a repeat this time.
Chris Mead
from "Apoplectic" <nice...@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> contains these words:
> "Chris Mead" <chris...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:200011231...@zetnet.co.uk...
> > The message <6fcT5.22737$8F2.3...@nnrp4.clara.net>
> > from "Apoplectic" <nice...@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> contains these words:
> >
>
> > We had local electricity board come into a field where we had grazing
> > horses through the wire, chop dow trees unnecessarily and then burn
> > them in said field using two large tyres to start the fire. Loads of
> > wire in embers and fence totally cocked up. We had only a verbal
> > agreement with owner so no come bacl. We have full written
> > agreement now with £1 a year rent and would be able to do something about
> it.
> What a disgraceful way to operate. Did they clear up??
No. We did. As we had no legal agreement we felt we had not got
the clout to follow it up. We would have had the trees for the wood
burning stove too if we had realised.
> >
> > 2) I believe Scottish Power is a part of the consortium provid
> > renewable energy for the RSPB to sell. Sick the RSPB on them!
> Really! RSPB sells electricity?! Do they have a particular interest in
> conserving trees though.
Yes - this is one of the few weays you can use electricity certified
and auditted to have conme from renewable sources. The RSOB plants
several 100,000 trees a year - so yes.
Pa...@d&g.com
<nice...@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> wrote:
>I'm sure they do enjoy it Paul but of what relevance is this here? The trees
>were under or near the lines but were no more than half the height of the
>poles. Storm or no storm they posed no conceivable threat - well into the
>future. It is a steep bank and trees do not grow fast or tall there.
>
>
>They cut these ones back a few years ago. They left a mess, but only trimmed
>the branches then, so I was off guard and expecting a repeat this time.
>
>
I am now totally baffled as to why you signed the permission in the
first place.
Paul
Apoplectic
<Paul@D&G.com> wrote in message news:3a24047b...@news.clara.net...
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 01:35:07 -0000, "Apoplectic"
> <nice...@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I'm sure they do enjoy it Paul but of what relevance is this here? The
trees
> >were under or near the lines but were no more than half the height of the
> >poles. Storm or no storm they posed no conceivable threat - well into the
> >future. It is a steep bank and trees do not grow fast or tall there.
> >
>
> >
trimmed
> >the branches then, so I was off guard and expecting a repeat this time.
> >
> >
> first place.
>
> Paul
Fair point. I suppose because I did not mind the result too much. It was a
careless way of working, but against that access is difficult and large
branches left lying are useful cover for wildlife, also I assume they must
have a procedure for dealing with situations where permission is not
granted.
Update to this story: It was contractors who did the job. I'm told that
Scottish Power like to have the trees cut down completely, but can't get to
the bottom of whose decision it was to fell rather than trim. However
Scottish Power/The contractor have agreed to plant 100 trees elsewhere on
the farm to make amends. I didn't mention that the site is an SSSI and SNH
were not too happy about the damage, so don't know if I'd have got anything
without their involvement.
Gerald L R Stubbs
from "Paul@D&G.com" contains these words:
> >They cut these ones back a few years ago. They left a mess, but only trimmed
> >the branches then, so I was off guard and expecting a repeat this time.
> I am now totally baffled as to why you signed the permission in the
> first place.
> Paul
Because, although they left a mess, they only trimmed the
branches. He expeceted that the same thing would happen,
that they would only trim the branches and leave a mess.
What they did was to fell the trees. He did not expect that.
--
Stubbsy stu...@zetnet.co.uk
<:<<<<<><
><>>>>>:>
Chris Mead
from "Apoplectic" <nice...@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> contains these words:
> <Paul@D&G.com> wrote in message news:3a24047b...@news.clara.net...
> > On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 01:35:07 -0000, "Apoplectic"
> > <nice...@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >I'm sure they do enjoy it Paul but of what relevance is this here? The
> trees
> > >were under or near the lines but were no more than half the height of the
> > >poles. Storm or no storm they posed no conceivable threat - well into the
> > >future. It is a steep bank and trees do not grow fast or tall there.
> > >
> >
> > >
> > >They cut these ones back a few years ago. They left a mess, but only
> trimmed
> > >the branches then, so I was off guard and expecting a repeat this time.
> > >
> > >
> > I am now totally baffled as to why you signed the permission in the
> > first place.
> >
> > Paul
> Fair point. I suppose because I did not mind the result too much. It was a
> careless way of working, but against that access is difficult and large
> branches left lying are useful cover for wildlife, also I assume they must
> have a procedure for dealing with situations where permission is not
> granted.
> Update to this story: It was contractors who did the job. I'm told that
> Scottish Power like to have the trees cut down completely, but can't get to
> the bottom of whose decision it was to fell rather than trim. However
> Scottish Power/The contractor have agreed to plant 100 trees elsewhere on
> the farm to make amends. I didn't mention that the site is an SSSI and SNH
> were not too happy about the damage, so don't know if I'd have got anything
> without their involvement.
Probably the right result.
In the late 1960s a very formidable lady (actually the BTO regional
representative) came back from holiday to find that the local River
Authority (or whatever it was) had canalised her river completely.
Nice gently winding stream with old trees on each side (all fully
owned by her) and CANAL. No Kingfishers etc - all part of her annual
bird survey. She was able to show exactly how bad it was and the
Authority never did it again without full consultation although the
Law said they could come in and do it. 60 some od patrician ladies
are probably the worst nightmare of corporate pen pushers. They are
probably chums of your Chairman's mother!
Gerald L R Stubbs
from "Apoplectic" <nice...@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> contains these words:
> Update to this story: It was contractors who did the job. I'm told that
> Scottish Power like to have the trees cut down completely, but can't get to
> the bottom of whose decision it was to fell rather than trim. However
> Scottish Power/The contractor have agreed to plant 100 trees elsewhere on
> the farm to make amends. I didn't mention that the site is an SSSI and SNH
> were not too happy about the damage, so don't know if I'd have got anything
> without their involvement.
Whether or not, it sounds like a decent result to me.
Have they agreed to supply replacements for fatalities ?
All the best,
-
Stubbsy stu...@zetnet.co.uk
<:<<<<<><
><>>>>>:>
Apoplectic
"Gerald L R Stubbs" <stu...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:200011282...@zetnet.co.uk...
> The message <XAWU5.31071$8F2.4...@nnrp4.clara.net>
> from "Apoplectic" <nice...@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> contains these words:
>
> > Update to this story: It was contractors who did the job. I'm told that
> > Scottish Power like to have the trees cut down completely, but can't get
to
> > the bottom of whose decision it was to fell rather than trim. However
> > Scottish Power/The contractor have agreed to plant 100 trees elsewhere
on
> > the farm to make amends. I didn't mention that the site is an SSSI and
SNH
> > were not too happy about the damage, so don't know if I'd have got
anything
> > without their involvement.
>
> Whether or not, it sounds like a decent result to me.
Yes it does. I feel OK about it now, but of course it shouldn't have
happened.
> Have they agreed to supply replacements for fatalities ?
Well yes. The 100 trees to be planted are the replacements. Replacement
trees under the power lines are not an option - due to the power lines; -
they may plant some shrubs, but protection from grazing animals is a problem
there.