15 Feet rule

[Philip Baker]

Are highway authorities empowered to plant trees or shrubs within 15 feet from the centre of a made-up carriageway?

 

This is asked because The Highway Act 1835, The Highways Act 1959, The Highways Act 1971, The Highways Act 1980 all state or refer indirectly to the 15 feet rule.

 

The Highway Act 1835 appears to state it as an absolute requirement but later Acts include "subject to" clauses which some local authorities have used as a "loophole" to plant trees closer, thereby causing obstruction of the highway.

 

The 15 feet measure may go back to The Appian Way in Roman times. Widths of roads have been discussed in Parliament over the decades. In 1950 John Profumo asked about road widths asnd the point was answered by Aneurin Bevan. Also in 1970 and at other times road widths have been debate including the run-up to the Roads (Scotland) Act.

 

With regard to the current Act, The Highways Act 1980, the 15 feet is stated in Section 141 and the "loophole" is in Section 96 of the same statute.

 

My belief is that the 15 feet rule was intended to apply to everyone to ensure a clear minimum width for road safety and other reasons. The fact that it has prevailed though so many Acts seems to support that belief.

 

What do youthink?

 

PS: There are many trees closer than 15 feet from the centre of carriageways and if the authorities eventually admit they were planted in contravention of primary statute it could generate new business for tree surgeons.

 

 

 

[daltontrees]

A standard road width is 7.3m, 24 feet. That just leaves room for 3 feet clear on either side.

 

Here in Scotland the Roads Act allows the roads authority to plant 'within the boundaries of the public road' which includes verges. There is a general prohibition against planting within 5 metres of the edge of the road itself.

 

[GarethM]

Are you advocating a mass treepocalypse in the name of road safety ?.

 

The rules generally apply to anything other than country roads, as you could interpret an old hedge as trees as most old roads wouldn't meet those width standards.

 

You could even argue Roman/Napoleon esk tree lined roads would be illegal.

[scbk]

It was a bit before my time, but I thought the romans liked the verges to be clear to keep the bandits away

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Philip Baker]

Thanks for the interesting feedback.

No intention to start tree culling for it own sake.

Imagine a highway with two 9 feet wide traffic lanes, kerbs, grass verges and footways each side.

A highway authority plants Hornbean trees with the centre 2 feet from the kerb edge: 11 feet from the centre of the made-up carriageway

Over time the outer edge of the trunk will get increasingly closer to carriageway.

If the highway authority maintains clearances, as some do, the tree will be almost "bald" on one side because the branches will be cut back almost to the trunk.

Some authorities such as National Highways specify 500mm side clearance from the edge of the carriageway to take account of lorry wing mirrors, etc. If that were done in this exampe there would be no place for the tree.

I have nothing against trees, bird nesting, bees, bats, berries or other forms of wild life.

Some believe that trees near roads are good for the environment because they absorb carbon dioxide. But if we considered all the pollution from internal combustion engines when trees have to be cut back it tips the balance. Lorries, cherry pickers, chain saws, shredders, return trips to the dumping ground, cuttings emitting carbon dioxide as the die, etc.

If someone drew up a chemical equation considering the rate of oxygen consumption of internal combustion engines, the emission from the engines versus the rate of gas exchange through trees it may not compute the way they would prefer. Then there is the matter of consumption of dwindling fossil fuel reserves.

As electric vehicles become more the norm the harmful emissions will be local to the power station rather than the roads. It would make sense to have trees growing to their full size close to the power station. Is that the case?

The highways exist primarily for the benefit of humans.

If humans want to enjoy the benefit that trees provide surely it would be better to place them where they do not need to be cut back and are allowed to grow to full capacity.

Attached is an image showing examples of clearances published by some authorities.

[Steven P]

For tree maintenance, one truck every 5 years and a couple of hours of chainsaw use is small stuff considering the traffic that will pass a tree in that time, insignificant really,

 

Road sides are a massive land area in the UK and it makes sense to use it if you can - so long as it is safe. There are many old trees along road sides that would have been removed if else where to make room for housing or larger fields, but you have a point, too close to the road is no good.

 

Personally local to me, I prefer my walk, cycles or runs to be along roads with trees and hedges as opposed to those lined with fences and wall, definitely better than ones lined with houses too.

[GarethM]

I'm sorry Phil, but you're sounding like some eco zealot banging on about trees, co2, electric cars and then power stations.

 

The council clearance figures are about standard for A type roads, to ensure access by HGVs without tree strikes.

 

New roads have new rules, old roads are not retrospective unless arterial routes. Usual rules apply to cut back to the edge of the highway/pavement for everything else.

[Philip Baker]

The only authority in the list which deals with motorways and major trunk roads is National Highways which uses clearances from an official manual.

 

The other council clearance figures apply to all roads. Two in the list are small parishes in The New Forest.

 

Many councils have provided leaflets, for example:
https://citizen.westberks.gov.uk/media/34807/Don-t-let-your-hedge-be-a-hazard/pdf/ENV_Hedge_hazards_22.pdf?m=637890898282400000

 

Some show dimensions in leaflets, example attached.

 

Whilst statutes do not always apply retrospectively The 15 feet rule has existed in primary statutes continuously since 1835. During the intervening 188 years many new road hazards have occurred or been created.

 

We all have a duty to protect the environment, hence my interest in trees and pollution. After all, hydrocarbon fossil fuels - coal, oil, gas come from trees.

 

Attached also is a still image taken from a video. It shows a highway which has no footway or grass verge but does have trees, some behind the camera.

One tree can be seen spanning about half the width of the carriageway which is just over 15 feet wide.

 

Beyond the two white vehicles is a turning to the right where there are more residence. High sided vehicles use the route regularly.

 

It doesn't matter where the highway is or who is responsible for it.

Does the team think the tree should be cut back?

 

One council was fined £300,000 for health and safety offences after a tree branch broke away, fell and killed someone. That council had been negligent with inspections and failed to pick up the fact that the tree was in an unsafe condition.

 

leaflet.pdf

[GarethM]

Just because you aren't getting the answer you want doesn't make it what happens in the real world.

 

Writing a thesis for every reply doesn't help either, most countryside roads are cut back level to the edge of the path or tarmac, 15ft would be 7ft into my field.

Edited September 9, 2023 by GarethM

[Stere]

This is like the new  ivy guy? 🙂