Dropped kerb planning rejected due to RPA

[Chris at eden]

3 minutes ago, john87 said:

Got to hear the explanation for this then... "my" tree, [assuming i had one] is protected, but the council can cut down LOADS of perfectly healthy ones, presumably because they did not like sweeping the leaves up.. How is that right?? Could i cut down a protected tree becuase i did not like leaves???

 

john..

Have you asked them why they were felled?  It’s highly unlikely that they are felling trees due to falling leaves. Most councils have tree retention policies these days.  They do come under a lot of pressure from residents, councillors, and MPs though. 
 

I used to work for a council about 15 years ago where councillors could overrule the TO (me) and get trees felled or pruned when I had recommended no works.  They are not all like that though. 
 

[Chris at eden]

3 hours ago, john87 said:

All this is all very well, but where i live there are loads of conservation areas where you cannot even touch your OWN trees.. This does not stop the council from doing away with literally HUNDREDS of them when it suits THEIR purposes though.

 

One rule for one, another rule for them..

 

john..

Quite literally - the rules / laws are different for the LA. Local authorities are exempt from the requirement to submit an Section 211 notice to work on trees in a CA.  
 

Tree protection legislation exists to ensure that trees are managed responsibly. If the LA is doing their job right then they should already be managing trees responsibly.  It’s the government that sets these rules not the LA.  At least that is meant to be how it works. 
 

cheers 

 

Chris. 

[Stubby]

37 minutes ago, john87 said:

Got to hear the explanation for this then... "my" tree, [assuming i had one] is protected, but the council can cut down LOADS of perfectly healthy ones, presumably because they did not like sweeping the leaves up.. How is that right?? Could i cut down a protected tree becuase i did not like leaves???

 

john..

Chalara fraxinia mitigation ?  Were they all road side / footpath side ?

[daltontrees]

23 hours ago, Chris at eden said:

Trees are a material consideration within the planning system.  That’s about as close as you will get to there being a law.  Section 197 of the town and country planning act 1990 places a duty on local authorities to protect and plant trees in the face of development.  Thats not the exact wording but pretty close. 
 

cheers 

 

Chris 

 

I would just dd to that that the Council owns the trees and the land they stand on, so that it has a common law right to protect them against damage and deny works on its land that wpuld do so.

[openspaceman]

5 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

- Get a 4x4 and just blast up the kerb

Can the council give permission to cross the footway without a dropped kerb?

[Chris at eden]

1 hour ago, openspaceman said:

Can the council give permission to cross the footway without a dropped kerb?

I don’t think so. When they do the crossover they have to reinforce it with a deeper sub base to protect the services.  It’s a £1k fine for crossing the pavement without a drop kerb from memory.  

[openspaceman]

15 minutes ago, Chris at eden said:

I don’t think so. When they do the crossover they have to reinforce it with a deeper sub base to protect the services.

I was just musing that the wear course could be reinforced such that the lower layers need not be disturbed and then the risk would be to the vehicle bumping up the kerb but the LA or HA would have to sanction the access, which seems unlikely.

15 minutes ago, Chris at eden said:

 It’s a £1k fine for crossing the pavement without a drop kerb from memory.  

I was aware of that hence the caveat that it would have to be approved.

[john87]

Ok..

 

First off.. The council might like to think they own the roads and trees, but do they?? Where my house is, was part of a building project thing, and all the purchasers of the houses, so far as i know, owned the road up to the middle of the road. There was an agreement that all concerned would chip in for the cost of putting in a road of a suitable standard that the LA would "adopt" it for the purposes of the RTA. That is not to say they own the land under it, or the trees that the builders planted along the sides of it..

 

The councils can think what they like, but have they got documentary proof of ownership?? Err, that would be a no. A bloke i know owns a farm. The council swore blind that they owned a track up the side of it and the trees etc, and were trying to order my mate about so he told them to prove they owned it. Of course, they could not..

 

As for driving up kerbs to gain access to your house, if you have done it for 21 years you have created and easement and then that is the end of the matter. The council will jump in and say that you could not have created an easement as what you were doing was illegal, which of course is complete nonsense. There is no law that says you cannot drive your own vehicle onto your own property, no matter what the council might lke to think..

 

john..

 

[openspaceman]

26 minutes ago, john87 said:

The council will jump in and say that you could not have created an easement as what you were doing was illegal,

It wouldn't be an easement but a prescriptive right. A prescriptive right cannot be gained by a criminal act, see Hanning v Topdeck, except by a limited special case.

 

This chap has just bought the house and the previous occupant seems only to have enjoyed a  pedestrian access.

[john87]

10 minutes ago, openspaceman said:

It wouldn't be an easement but a prescriptive right. A prescriptive right cannot be gained by a criminal act, see Hanning v Topdeck, except by a limited special case.

 

This chap has just bought the house and the previous occupant seems only to have enjoyed a  pedestrian access.

That is right, but how is crossing the pavement an illegal act??

 

john..