Felling licence

[daltontrees]

That said, the streetview pic shows fairly small trees despite diameter, and may have snuck in under the 5 cube a quarter exemption.

[daltontrees]

6 minutes ago, Paul in the woods said:

Just because there's a wall it doesn't mean it's the boundary does it? They may have just wanted to enclose their front garden. I've build walls at the front of properties that are not right on a boundary. I currently have an area at the front of my drive that isn't enclosed, it allows cars to pass on a narrow road. It is not public property.

 

From the article linked "A Surrey County Council spokesperson said its highways team had not felled any trees within 650m either side of Usherwood Close.

They added: "We have not sanctioned any works on these trees. The trees may or may not be on the highway verge, and will require a site visit to measure where they sit on the boundary or verge."

Highways will be arranging for someone to visit to ascertain the ownership of the trees and to decide what action could be taken, if they were public trees.

 

 

I'll say again, it's the use of the land, not the ownership that matters. I can't see anyone successfully arguing that, having separated their garden from the public road and land that either officially or unofficially is used as road verge, the strip of ground is still part of their garden.

 

Another ocnsideration is that Roads and Highways vests verges and in some cases the trees on them in the public onwership regardless of process and regardless of ownership of the land beneath the verge. That would explain the Counci's comments. It will have a register of adopted roads and verges that it can check.

Edited June 11, 2021 by daltontrees

[Paul in the woods]

Looking at the streetview map I would find it hard to argue that public had access to the land under the trees (and hedge!) before they were cut down. They may have removed them to install a fence or something.

 

I note one tree is leaning somewhat, I wonder who has maintained the trees in the past and if the owners have been asked to do anything to the trees?

Edited June 11, 2021 by Paul in the woods

[openspaceman]

53 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

They're not in a garden, thye are in the verge of a public road.

Yes it's a public highway and the verge is part of the highway even if it isn't surfaced. You would need to look at old maps to see if is highway. It can still be a highway verge even if it remains in the ownership of the adjacent land.

 

The only breach likely is the forestry act IMO.

[openspaceman]

25 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

It will have a register of adopted roads and verges that it can check.

It is part of the adopted road network

 

https://surreycc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=3d9bbb5e659b4078bb1cae0112ccbead

 and search Usherwood close then select Roads and Transport publicly maintained roads. The mapping indicates it is verge but that can still be in the ownership of Byways even if part of the highway.

[daltontrees]

1 hour ago, openspaceman said:

It is part of the adopted road network

 

https://surreycc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=3d9bbb5e659b4078bb1cae0112ccbead

 and search Usherwood close then select Roads and Transport publicly maintained roads. The mapping indicates it is verge but that can still be in the ownership of Byways even if part of the highway.

So it might be breach of Forestry Act, possible restocking obligation, criminal damage and a civil action for loss of tres owned by Council. Don't know, do we, but it can be edifying to rehearse the arguments. 

[daltontrees]

1 hour ago, Paul in the woods said:

Looking at the streetview map I would find it hard to argue that public had access to the land under the trees (and hedge!) before they were cut down. They may have removed them to install a fence or something.

 

I note one tree is leaning somewhat, I wonder who has maintained the trees in the past and if the owners have been asked to do anything to the trees?

Sorry, I'm still not getting it. If it's not in a garden it doesn't have that exemption. It doesn't really matter what other use it is in. Maybe you're confusing it with the public open space exemption, but since that could only have been exercised by the Council it's unlikely. In my view the public open space exemption would not apply anyway. The test of it is not public access, it is purpose (or use, in a slightly different word).

 

There may be a whole side of the story we don't know about, though.

[Paul in the woods]

16 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

Sorry, I'm still not getting it. If it's not in a garden it doesn't have that exemption. It doesn't really matter what other use it is in. Maybe you're confusing it with the public open space exemption, but since that could only have been exercised by the Council it's unlikely. In my view the public open space exemption would not apply anyway. The test of it is not public access, it is purpose (or use, in a slightly different word).

 

There may be a whole side of the story we don't know about, though.

I though I've been fairly clear, you've not convinced me it's not a garden. Ignore the public open space exemption, I only mentioned that before I found the story.

 

Looking at the pics and steetview the wall doesn't look that old. If it wasn't there then the trees would appear to be part of a garden hedge boundary. Just because someone has walled in a parking area that doesn't mean they've changed the size of the garden or moved the boundary.

 

But as you say, there's bound to be more to story. Perhaps highways will decide they own the land? Perhaps the wall is the boundary?

 

I was just wondering if traffic management would have been required, in which would highways not have known the works were planned? Surely whoever removed the trees checked for the need of a FL?

 

I'm interested as I've been in a similar position where the councils just make stuff up as they go along.

Edited June 11, 2021 by Paul in the woods

[daltontrees]

2 hours ago, Paul in the woods said:

I though I've been fairly clear, you've not convinced me it's not a garden. Ignore the public open space exemption, I only mentioned that before I found the story.

 

Looking at the pics and steetview the wall doesn't look that old. If it wasn't there then the trees would appear to be part of a garden hedge boundary. Just because someone has walled in a parking area that doesn't mean they've changed the size of the garden or moved the boundary.

 

But as you say, there's bound to be more to story. Perhaps highways will decide they own the land? Perhaps the wall is the boundary?

 

I was just wondering if traffic management would have been required, in which would highways not have known the works were planned? Surely whoever removed the trees checked for the need of a FL?

 

I'm interested as I've been in a similar position where the councils just make stuff up as they go along.

I'm not out to persuade, without the facts all us humble onlookers can do is use it as an opportunity ot refine understandings of the rules and regulations. Maybe the trees were in a garden when they were chopped, although the evidence doesn't support it.  The wall does look new, or at least recently cleaned.

 

What we can definitely agree on is that Councils just make stuff up, and aren't good at it either.

[Dan Maynard]

"Like a war zone"

Really?