Priddy Circles forum 6 room
Image by postman
Priddy Circles

Priddy Circles damage fine appropriate?

close
more_vert
tjj T
tjj Nov 26, 2012 09:14:37
Replying to CARL

CARL wrote:
I had the weekend in Winchester (lovely place) and while there caught the local news.
A chap has just been fined £75,000 for cutting a mature tree down in his garden (which he wasn't allowed to do) in order to give an unobstructed sea view. It was estimated that this would increase the value of his property by £50,000. The council said they did not want him to financially benefit from his actions.
I am in no way saying that the fine was too high but it does make you think that the fine for the Priddy damage was too low?
An interesting dilemma Carl - the Priddy fine was just £2,500 with £7,500 in costs, although the offending land-owner also pledged £38,000 towards restoring the henge. To me this seems reasonable and no doubt the land-owner (who was of 'previous good character' had had time to reflect on the gravity of his actions). Would penalising him further have done any good - I doubt it.

I was with a small group of people the other day out around Silbury (now surrounded by water). One of them, a Canadian woman, admitted walking up Silbury whenever she could but said she did carefully and with respect. I have been in the forefront of making making dogmatic posts here in the past saying that people shouldn't. However, when face to face with an actual person who does, ranting didn't seem the way to go. I just quietly re-stated the reasons why its not a good idea and hoped it had some impact.

Edit: In the case of the man who cut down the tree to increase the value of his property I've just discovered this action was taken in a clandestine manner under the cover of darkness and the tree had a preservation order on it - so in light of that, the fine seems a fair cop.

S Sanctuary
Sanctuary Nov 26, 2012 09:46:30
Replying to tjj

tjj wrote:
CARL wrote:
I had the weekend in Winchester (lovely place) and while there caught the local news.
A chap has just been fined £75,000 for cutting a mature tree down in his garden (which he wasn't allowed to do) in order to give an unobstructed sea view. It was estimated that this would increase the value of his property by £50,000. The council said they did not want him to financially benefit from his actions.
I am in no way saying that the fine was too high but it does make you think that the fine for the Priddy damage was too low?
An interesting dilemma Carl - the Priddy fine was just £2,500 with £7,500 in costs, although the offending land-owner also pledged £38,000 towards restoring the henge. To me this seems reasonable and no doubt the land-owner (who was of 'previous good character' had had time to reflect on the gravity of his actions). Would penalising him further have done any good - I doubt it.

I was with a small group of people the other day out around Silbury (now surrounded by water). One of them, a Canadian woman, admitted walking up Silbury whenever she could but said she did carefully and with respect. I have been in the forefront of making making dogmatic posts here in the past saying that people shouldn't. However, when face to face with an actual person who does, ranting didn't seem the way to go. I just quietly re-stated the reasons why its not a good idea and hoped it had some impact.

Edit: In the case of the man who cut down the tree to increase the value of his property I've just discovered this action was taken in a clandestine manner under the cover of darkness and the tree had a preservation order on it - so in light of that, the fine seems a fair cop.

Yes, if he was aware of the Preservation Order then chuck the book at the bloke! Light sentences and fines are the main reason why yobs do as they like in this country. Grrrr.

J juamei
juamei Nov 26, 2012 10:26:08
Replying to tjj

tjj wrote:
CARL wrote:
I had the weekend in Winchester (lovely place) and while there caught the local news.
A chap has just been fined £75,000 for cutting a mature tree down in his garden (which he wasn't allowed to do) in order to give an unobstructed sea view. It was estimated that this would increase the value of his property by £50,000. The council said they did not want him to financially benefit from his actions.
I am in no way saying that the fine was too high but it does make you think that the fine for the Priddy damage was too low?
An interesting dilemma Carl - the Priddy fine was just £2,500 with £7,500 in costs, although the offending land-owner also pledged £38,000 towards restoring the henge. To me this seems reasonable and no doubt the land-owner (who was of 'previous good character' had had time to reflect on the gravity of his actions). Would penalising him further have done any good - I doubt it.
The key there is "towards restoring". He should have been fined enough to fully restore the henge as a bare minimum. As it stands £38k is barely enough to archaeologically investigate what damage he had done. I think he got away incredibly lightly, a fine 3 times as much would have more in keeping with the offense.

EH haven't said what they will do on site, but £38k isn't going to rebuild what he so brazenly had destroyed.

Like all websites everywhere, we use cookies.