"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , Simon Avery SPAM.B.GONEdigdilem@s
ofthome.net writes
sacha wrote:

Hello sacha

[Ragwort]

s I may be wrong but I was certainly under the impression that
s it was notifiable.

You're right, it is. Thought to be fair, I don't know anyone who's
been prosecuted for allowing it to grow.

What do you mean by 'notifiable'? Usually this means that if you find it
on your land you have to notify if to the authorities. I have found
legislation saying it is an offence to allow it to escape on to someone
else's ground, but I haven't found anything anywhere that says you have
to notify someone if you find it. Can you give me a reference?



Confusion reigns. Common Ragwort is one of the five injurious weeds listed
under the Weeds Act 1959. If DEFRA is informed of a serious infestation, it
has powers under ss1-3 of the Act to require the occupier of the relevant
land to take steps to prevent the escape of the weed, or to do the work
itself and re-charge the cost (hence no 'prosecutions' for having it in your
land). This applies primarily to agricultural land, since the old MAFF was
originally set up to deal with that, not gardens etc. It is arguable whether
Planning Authorities have powers in respect of Ragwort infestation under the
1990 Act.

See http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/weed...edscontrol.htm
for the 'official' guidance.

Perhaps 'notifiable' means subject to the s1 notification procedure, in this
context? I should think the majority of people contacting DEFRA do so in
respect of it growing on someone else's land, not their own :-)

HTH