There was a local case pursued by the Forestry Commission and their position
matches that suggested earlier - if it looks like a garden then it isn't
woodland.
In this particular case the land adjoined woodland owned by the Council and
from aerial photos, looking at it from a distance etc it was clearly part of
the much larger adjoining wood. It also adjoined the dwelling. The whole
site was clear felled without a licence.
The householder said garden, the Forestry Commission said woodland. The case
didn't make it to court (the defendant died just before the case was due to
be heard) but the Forestry Commission were very clear that the Forestry Act
had been breached.
If in doubt contact the Forestry Commission - it's much better to have a
debate before the forwarder moves in!
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Pryce Arboriculture [mailto:simon@xxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk]
Sent: 27 December 2007 20:23
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: Felling licence
From experience of one case a few years ago the "attached to a dwelling
house" bit is highly relevant. In that case the house had been
demolished but some garden features, including bases of greenhouses and
tiled paths were still present. The FC didn't accept the argument that
it was a garden and the case did go to court.
If there is any doubt it is worth being careful with this. I'm, not
sure if the situation has changed in recent years, but at the time
prosecutions were done by MAFF who seemed to pursue them even where the
chances of conviction were well under 50% and there was no obvious
public interest [the DPP criteria]. One Justices Clerk of my
acquaintance used to get really annoyed with the way they clogged his
court up.
Simon
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
