UKTC Archive

RE: Felling licence

Subject: RE: Felling licence
From: John Flannigan
Date: Dec 28 2007 07:51:19
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

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! 

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Pryce Arboriculture [] 
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.


The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre

The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre