The Oulton land that was illegally felled.
Bernard Matthews ordered to replant more than 300 trees after ‘admin error’
By sophie wyllie
Monday, March 11, 2013
6:02 PM
More than 300 trees were illegally felled in a north Norfolk village, a Forestry Commission investigation has revealed.
Two officers from the commission inspected the cleared land at Oulton Airfield, near Blickling, owned by Bernard Matthews, on February 27 after concerned villagers alerted the organisation.
Steve Scott, area director for the Forestry Commission in the East and East Midlands, said: “We can confirm that the felling had taken place without a licence being in place. We have informed the owners that we intend to issue a restocking notice.”
The notice means Bernard Matthews would have to replace the trees by spring next year.
He added steps could be taken to reinforce the order by the commission, if it was not followed.
Mr Scott said more than 300 trees were cut down and were a mixture of broad leaf specimens and conifers and the commission would advise Bernard Matthews about which trees should be replanted.
Oulton residents said the specimens were planted after Broadland District Council’s planning committee insisted in 1991 that new turkey sheds, put up at the time, should be screened.
They were “outraged” after the trees were removed and were concerned it was part of Bernard Matthews’ unpopular 80m-high wind turbine application, submitted to Broadland District Council.
The cleared area is next to a proposed site on land between the Blickling and Heydon conservation areas.
Oulton homeowner Daisy Turville-Petre said: “We welcome the decision but it doesn’t take away what Bernard Matthews has done, which is to fell nearly 350 healthy trees needlessly without a licence.”
A Bernard Matthews spokesman said: “We accept an administrative error was made regarding the acquisition of a felling licence and will comply with the Forestry Commission’s judgment.”
Other News Articles
- Parents pay tribute to “incredibly caring” Norwich disabled campaigner
- Norfolk teenager wins work placement at Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s restaurant
- Cycling project immortalises Stephen Fry, Edith Cavell and Lord Nelson in Norwich
- Fashion made in Norwich takes to the catwalk at the first NUA graduate show
- Volunteers are among the stars of the Norfolk and Norwich Festival
- Norfolk crime commissioner defends accusations from MPs
- Norfolk storm chaser’s encounter with devastating Oklahoma tornado
- Mustard video: CSI-style murder mystery in schools’ festival of chemistry
- Broadland’s growth ‘trajectories’ questioned by inspector at Joint Core Strategy hearing
- Date announced for opening of Davenport’s Magic Kingdom in North Walsham, “Great Britain’s only museum of magic”
ADVERTISEMENT
25 comments
The unwanted wind turbine planning application has now been submitted by these odious people. It is at Broadland Council and is numbered 20130177 This is your opportunity to object to it.
Report this comment
Windless
Saturday, March 16, 2013
This is disgraceful. All the directors should be made to replant the trees personally. NO excuse whatsoever. Corporate responsibility has failed big time!! Un believeable!!
Report this comment
Dave01
Thursday, March 14, 2013
From the people who brought you the new game of baseball with live turkeys as well as the unhealthy turkey twizzler and operating conditons which almost led to an outbreak of killer avian flu now comes the new activities of administrative incompetance and some very convenient illegal logging! Not an impressive record.
Report this comment
Edmund Allenby
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
If our landowning NNDC really looked, there are plenty of trees coming down in what they say is a preservation area. Just get the impression they don't look too closely. And the same goes on the scrap metal alongside some of our designated walking paths. But again why would the landowners on the council care
Report this comment
weaversway
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
This is not to be expected from BM as they treat the environment the same way as they treat the employees.
Report this comment
turnover
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
nooultonturbine, it's actually both. Real reason for the felling was to remove potential planning objection based on proximity of bats, and "admin" is the excuse to cover over a deliberate act.
Report this comment
Mr Cameron Isaliar
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
If the Forestry Commission wants to do this properly they should impose a replanting order requiring material of comparable age. There are many specialist suppliers of semi-mature trees and a few going into the heavy specimen bracket at 50cm girth and upwards. The whole cost of the project would be a few hundred thousand pounds and this would be a more proportionate penalty than directing the planting of a few saplings. Steve Scott take note!
Report this comment
Mr Cameron Isaliar
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Last week they were saying it was because of bats. This week its an "admin error". Oh dear Bernard Matthews. Think they may have been trying to stuff us all like their turkeys!
Report this comment
nooultonturbine
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Last week they were saying it was because of bats. This week its an "admin error". Oh dear Bernard Matthews. Think they may have been trying to stuff us all like their turkeys!
Report this comment
nooultonturbine
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Just shows how "green" BM really is...chop down over 300 trees so they can make money by ruining the landscape with ineffcient, unwanted and wholly inappropriate industrial structures in our countryside. Answer is to boycott their poducts until they show adequate respect for our countryside....and also show more respect for the intelligence of council and commission officers ...an admin error?? ..how weak is that? ,,,they should be heavilly fined and censured otherwise the council and the commission are made to look like inept and gullible fools who can not be trusted with the public's confidence.
Report this comment
Edmund Allenby
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
It's not only "mysterious burning buildings" Daisy, it is also a developer get permssion to build x number of houses. Then mysteriously every house has a variation order applied for, to make them bigger, have something added etc. The council planners usually wave this through without question so the development looks nothing like the plans. This always happens with a certain Bradwell, garden grabbing developer. The parish council and Yarmouth Council always agree to the variations.
Report this comment
"V"
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
I thought there were fines and penalties in place for felling too much timber without a licence. We had to agree an acceptable capacity per year for a rolling basis felling for fuel. One hopes these fines will be applied in full. BM and any landowner felling ahead of a planning application should have their application dismissed. It is like a listed building mysteriously burning down ahead of an application for redevelopment of a site. I don't think obsessing about young trees like these is sensible, we should protect old and environmetally important woodlands and use new woodlands as our ancestors did, as a sustainable resource.But felling a landscape belt planted as part of a planning consent, in the hope of an easier ride for another application is shows either incredible stupidity or incredible arrogance.
Report this comment
Daisy Roots
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
No-one who knows the background to this case will believe for a moment that this was a random "error" by BM.
Report this comment
Trevor Ashwin
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
If this is what it is like when planning laws are in force just think what it will be like when the planning laws are eased or scrapped.
Report this comment
john kendall
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
If this was an admin error, I'm a seven foot Chinaman! A well known ploy for getting your own way because the deed is already done. I agree that they should be made to replace with mature trees.
Report this comment
julygirl
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
I wonder if the "admin error" was possibly deliberate because to apply for a license would have alerted the "powers that be" BEFORE felling could take place? They should be forced to replace the trees at size and not plant a few puny saplings.
Report this comment
richard black
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
In a somewhat strange turn of events I find myself almost agree wing with 'Windless'. The removal of trees here completely defeats the environmental object of having a wind turbine. I support many turbine applications (like Bodham and Hempstead), but here the applicant has been wreck less and the turbine shouldn't be permitted here.
Report this comment
Callum Ringer
Monday, March 11, 2013
There are countless cases in the UK where companies or landowners have been fined large amounts of money for illegal tree felling, so why are Mathews getting away with this? An ‘admin error’ is not a good enough excuse and these people should be taken to court, no ifs, buts, or admin errors.
Report this comment
Joe Mullets Uncle
Monday, March 11, 2013
How's your carbon footprint getting along Bernard Matthews?
Report this comment
Peter Watson
Monday, March 11, 2013
They knew what they were flaming well doing and by the looks of things, have got away with it. They can stuff their Turkeys where the sun don't shine as far as I am concerned as none of their products will come near my house.
Report this comment
John L Norton
Monday, March 11, 2013
And this should be used as the number one reason to refuse any planning permission for the hugely UNWANTED MONEY TURBINE. If any individual did this all hell would be let loose, these people have NOT had an ADMIN error, they did this quite deliberately as part of their bigger agenda. I for one hope that this works and there is never a wind turbine here, or, indeed anywhere else in East Anglia.
Report this comment
Windless
Monday, March 11, 2013
An 'administration error' - oh please, we weren't born yesterday. Bernard Matthews should be taken to court and fined.
Report this comment
brillopad
Monday, March 11, 2013
Hit 'em' in the pocket, Bernie's new regime still run the old boy's tightfisted agenda.
Report this comment
nrg
Monday, March 11, 2013
How possibly can administrators, so not used to contracts and planning applications, regulations and liaison with the council understand the difference between a planning requirement and their own back garden. Their day is taken up by making coffee and stroking turkeys by the sound of it. The company involved should be fined like anybody else would be fined.
Report this comment
ingo wagenknecht
Monday, March 11, 2013
A pathetic excuse and barely credible. This sort of supposed negligence, assuming it was not actually deliberate, is still no defence, so why will there not be a prosecution?
Report this comment
Police Commissioner ???
Monday, March 11, 2013