can anyone help me please?! - Page 2

Darley · #26 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lost in the woods

Hi
I am sure you need a license to remove trees over a certain size if you do not have a license you are breaking the law there is always evidence left behind by the removal of trees. The council can not turn a blind eye if you ask for the letter to go on record. Then try writing to the local paper this could be another avenue to bring pressure to bare on the council especially with the letter on record. Also try your local wildlife groups normally they also work with the council your local M.P. needs to be contacted again put your complaint in writing also explain to him how you will be contacting your local paper to drum up support.
Regards
Lost in the Woods

I think you can do what you like to a tree that deosn't have a TPO, as long as it's on your land.

fairplay · #27 (**permalink**) 09-10-2008, 10:00 PM

A felling licence is required from the forestry commission depending upon how many cubic metres are involved.

I shouldn't think a licence was necessary in this instance.

I doubt if this housing area is classified as a conservation area (in which case permission from the District Council would have been needed before any work can be done on trees - including pruning !)

Neil.

Tursiops2 · #28 (**permalink**) 09-10-2008, 10:53 PM

Hi jaxinthebox, I wish I'd seen this thread earlier. That's a disgraceful act of vandalism and your neighbour is clearly of very dubious character. Land law is very complicated, and what he's done is on the borderline of illegality, and there may or may not be anything you can do about it. I'd like to recommend two possible courses of action:

1. Contact your local council's Tree Officer to find out if the trees are covered by Tree Preservation Orders. If they are, the council must take action, and your neighbour could be in trouble.

2. Visit this site: Garden Law Discussion :: Index It's an excellent forum with some very knowledgable people on it, and I'm sure you'll get good advice there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaxinthebox

I have also been told that if its no ones land, then anyone can fence it off, clear it and maintain the up keep for 5 years, then the land will automatically become theirs, but im not sure if thats true or not.

The legal term for this is "Adverse Possession", and the period is 12 years, not 5. Your neighbour is in no position to claim AP, but it's just possible that you are. The law has recently been tightened up so it's harder to succeed in a claim, but it's worth looking into. Someone on Gardenlaw will be able to tell you, I'm sure.

Good luck
T2

dmclean2 · #29 (**permalink**) 10-10-2008, 12:15 AM

What he is doing is illegal,
He has no more claim to that land than anyone else
I agree with our collegues who advise getting the local papers and media involved,
Bring that person into the limelight of the public, write letters to your local MP. get as many local officials involved as you can,
I REALY FEEL ANGRY AT THIS PERSON , and I am not one who gets riled easily,
I sympathise with you completely, it must be very hard for you to stomache this kind of behaviour,
I wish you luck in your quest for justice for the wildlife,
DOWN WITH BULLYS
DUncan

Blackbrook Eye · #30 (**permalink**) 10-10-2008, 04:08 AM

][quote=Tursiops2;350146Hi
The legal term for this is "Adverse Possession", and the period is 12 years, not 5. Your neighbour is in no position to claim AP, but it's just possible that you are. The law has recently been tightened up so it's harder to succeed in a claim, but it's worth looking into. Someone on Gardenlaw will be able to tell you, I'm sure.

Good luck
T2[/QUOTE]

Am I missing something here, surely irrespective of any other 'rights or wrongs' the claim for ownership would be at the end of the 5 or 12 year period, not at the beginning as the neighbour has done in this instance ?

Keith

Rebus · #31 (**permalink**) 10-10-2008, 03:31 PM

Keep fighting Jaxinthebox, wildlife needs all the help it can get! I hope the foxes come back to haunt him

The Woodman · #32 (**permalink**) 10-10-2008, 04:33 PM

Looking at the set of three images that Darley helped to post earlier in the thread, it looks like someones overgrown back garden to me?

Cotham Marble · #33 (**permalink**) 10-10-2008, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Woodman

Looking at the set of three images that Darley helped to post earlier in the thread, it looks like someones overgrown back garden to me?

Yes, precisely.

My guess is that 'the lane' in question was never adopted as a right of way, which is something very common with 'back lanes' on Council built housing estates. Typically the Councils made no effort to maintain the lanes, something which accelerated once the right to buy legislation took off and there was a question of who should 'pay'. Additionally in recent years there's been a very strong movement to block these lanes because people are paranoid about security.

My guess is that both the local Council and the bulk of the local community are more than happy for householders to bring the lane within their own property boundaries and remove the overgrowth. This is occuring across the Country and has been since at least the late 1980s. I was involved in discussions over two such lanes in 1993, and the feeling amongst the locals was very stongly in favour of closure and subsequent 'manicure', and the only opposition was from well intentioned 'outsiders'. One may wish that things were different but notions of what is acceptable when it come to 'wild' are often very much against anything that is not 'security optimised' and 'gardening programme' neat.

CM

fairplay · #34 (**permalink**) 11-10-2008, 01:16 AM

We are not going to help Jaxinthebox if we now start to make wild guesses and drift away from what was stated at the beginning.

This is not someone's 'back garden' or even more ridiculous 'a lane' - it is as Jaxinthebox stated at the beginning 'a piece of land that the council are no longer interested in'

All land is owned by somebody. It could be the owner died many years ago and next of kin whatever are unaware this is theirs now or are not interested because they live abroad.
There are many reasons, but at some stage, many years back, the council took on responsibility and 'maintained' the area and, I would imagine, are happy to get rid of it.

This is the risk the developer is taking - 'the owner, if alive, could turn up at any time (within the time limit, 5 or 12 years as the case may be) and claim his land back if he can prove it.

The new fence is the developers property so must not be damaged in any way, but if it is only flimsy,portable fencing, there may be a legal loophole whereby it could be collected together or rolled up.

The risk is that the developer may then have a case of claiming labour costs in having to reinstate the fence. (suffered a 'loss')

The longer this thread goes on without any positive news about MP's comments, Planning dept response e.t.c then I'm beginning to have concerns about the accuracy of what was said at the onset of this thread, and if there was a case to answer surely the press would be involved by now.

It's time we had some positive feedback Jaxinthebox.

Neil.

Cotham Marble · #35 (**permalink**) 11-10-2008, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fairplay

We are not going to help Jaxinthebox if we now start to make wild guesses and drift away from what was stated at the beginning.

This is not someone's 'back garden' or even more ridiculous 'a lane' - it is as Jaxinthebox stated at the beginning 'a piece of land that the council are no longer interested in' Neil.

This is what the original post said about the site:

my dads house is in a quiet cul de sac which has an alley leading to the backs of everyones gardens. The alleyway has been a safe haven for all wildlife in the area as theres an area that the neighbours left untouched especially for the foxes and squirrels etc. the foxes have all had cubs etc, and we used to see these on a regular basis, until 4 days ago when a new neighbour bought the 2 houses that back on to the back of the alley. He then decided to fence the alley off (moving the boundaries and making his back garden bigger) and hacked away at all the trees and bushes where these foxes and squirels lived.

What is being described is a very common situation involving an unmaintained and/or unadopted right of way. Ownership of these 'alleys' are often ambiguous because of a lack of an initial formal agreement between the estate builders and the Highway Authority. The position has become increasingly complicated as time has gone on, particularly with changes in rights of way law and, where public housing was involved, the effect of right to buy legislation.

The fencing in of unused/unclaimed land has a long legal precedent and local authorities both as land owner and Rights of Way authorities frequently acquiesce when this happens simply to avoid long and costly legal battles or because they are happy to lose a complicated and costly to maintain patch of ground. What Councils often find is that if they do these disposals in a proactive manner there will be rights of way objections, so they frequently just leave the problem to 'sort itself out'.

In any event a 'back alley' is a poor site for a secure wildlife area, in that if it were to be properly adopted as a right of way, it would have to be cleared and maintained by the local authority so resolving the legal position in terms of public access rather than private ownership would still see the wildlife losing out.

The moral is that if anyone is concrened about one of the 'overgrown' areas, they need to negotiate its longer term protection proactively, not just assume it will be there forever.

CM

sometimes · #36 (**permalink**) 11-10-2008, 09:17 AM

I've nothing to help but to make the suggestion that you claim the land, that you cared for it (you've lived there x years after all).
You might make the point that all evidence of your care has deliberately removed by the developer.

The Woodman · #37 (**permalink**) 11-10-2008, 11:23 AM

Fairplay - I was commenting on what I thought the images looked like to me i.e. an unkempt area of gardens, I'll stick by that after reviewing the images again this morning. An opinion based on what I see - the rear of a house to the left with a wooden fence leading to a boundary with what looks like a car park area. I wasn't offering opinion on land ownership, rights of way etc.

Can you confidently state that "This is not someone's 'back garden' or even more ridiculous 'a lane'".

We do not know all the facts, we could all have a guess, for instance, the houses might be council houses and the statement, "a piece of land that the council are no longer interested in " could apply to unkempt gardens of those houses - that's a guess too. You've had a guess, "It could be the owner died many years ago.."

There's many a tidy property that attracts squirrels and foxes.

Jackinabox may have summed it up when he said, " theres an area that the neighbours left untouched". Perhaps it wasn't theirs to do anything with!

Generally agree with Neil and CM and the points they raise. To help with a situation like this, more facts are needed, not speculation.

gess · #38 (**permalink**) 11-10-2008, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fairplay

I strongly suspect there has been some 'insider dealing' going on here in that someone in the Planning Dept at the District Council became aware of the situation here, told a developer friend, explained that his/her Council bosses would be unlikely to take action because of the demand for 'much needed housing' in the area and they share the profit from the sale of the houses.

The only way they could become unstuck (or is it stuck ?) is if, when the planning application is made, there is a massive campaign by the locals
against the houses being built that the application fails or is withdrawn.

The developer/vandal has obviously done his homework and put out 'feelers' and any day now you can expect to see an official planning application for an impossible number of houses which will then be re-submitted (after the usual outcry) for 2 or 3 houses (to 'everyone's relief')

Note: Anyone can put in a planning application for any bit of land - you don't have to own it. As long as the form is correctly filled in and the relevant fee paid, that's all to it.

With the trees now grubbed up, you have lost this battle, and will just have to come to terms with it. But if you have any fight left, see your MP and hope he is not of the same political party that run the Council.

If a District Council is your local authority, then see your District Councillor or one who is not in the same party as the party which runs the Council.

It shouldn't have to be like this, but corruption is everywhere.

Neil.

Neil, I sat reading this thinking exactly the same as you!!!!! I will be very suprised if this isn't the case, the fact he has done it so quickly speaks volumes to me!

Jax, I hope you find the energy to see this through, if it was me I would be raving too! GOOD LUCK to you

Gess

KeenTeen17 · #39 (**permalink**) 11-10-2008, 04:49 PM

I know how you feel ( probably not as bad as you though ) most of my neighbours are cutting the trees down so they can extend their already fat drives or have a conservatory built

vole-woman · #40 (**permalink**) 11-10-2008, 05:08 PM

Have you contacted the Environment Agency? It's possible they might be able to help.

fairplay · #41 (**permalink**) 12-10-2008, 12:45 AM

This surprisingly wouldn't come under the EA's remit - polluting the land would, but the photo's show a bulldozer now levelling the soil and probably removing most of the rubbish dumped there in the past.

I'm waiting to find out what the Wildlife Trust have to say, also I find it hard to believe 2 Red Squirrels would still be surviving near London - a case of mistaken identity surely Jaxinthebox ?

Re: Right of Way - this term is used too loosely, looking at the photo's the land seems to be the result of past carving up.
At the most it would be Private Access.

A public R.O.W. is something totally different and to exist would have to be shown with an accompanying statement on the 'definitive map' kept for public inspection at the council offices.

If, by an outside chance this is shown as a Public R.O.W. then the developer is breaking the law by 'obstructing (with a fence) or carrying out works to a R.O.W. without the necessary consent' (from the council).

By law, a public notice would have to be clearly displayed at the entrance to the site. It is strange that Jaxinthebox has made no mention of any public notices of any description.

Upon request, the council must provide any information on plans to develop this site - the threat of wanting to see the relevant Public Records Database using the "Freedom of Information" law, should do the trick.

Neil.

jaxinthebox · #42 (**permalink**) 14-10-2008, 11:07 AM

Thanks to everyone who left replies, ok ill try and explain as best i can. The area isn't a council estate area, it is all privately owned houses, and have been since they were built in the late 1920's (as my dads house has been in the family since it was built, so we know the area extremely well).
The fence where the car park is that you can see in the pictures is the car park for the local bingo hall and this area leads onto a main dual carriageway.
The area concerned is not an unkempt area of gardens, we have checked on the deeds of both my dads and the other neighbour that is helping us, and it shows that it is access to the back gardens of all the houses joined by the alleyway. At one point the council did prune and trim etc about 20 years ago, but the main work was always done by the neighbours, and because of the foxes we all decided to leave that area for them as they had babies and we didnt want to disturb them, and thats how its been for 20 or so years.

There is no notices of any kind posted either near the land or even on his front of his property. I suspect there will be soon enough as the person who has done this is a builder, and we are guessing that he wants the land to build a house on. But as yet there has been no notices or planning permission. But i will take neils advice (thank you) and write to the council under the freedom of information act and see if there are any plans.
As for the Red Squirrels....i did ask the neighbour, and she was adamant that they were Red Squirrels....i thought they were but figured i best check, just incase.
The area is listed on both sets of deeds as a right of way to the back gardens, but when we spoke to the council, they said they couldnt do anything, even though we stated the facts to them, and we even tried ringing several times in the hope that we would get to speak to a different person and hopefully that person would have a different attitude.

""The moral is that if anyone is concrened about one of the 'overgrown' areas, they need to negotiate its longer term protection proactively, not just assume it will be there forever.

CM ""

Yes i agree on hindsight we should have done more before all this happened, but we certainly didnt expect someone would be allowed to do this, yet alone to be so callous and just go ahead and do it anyway regardless of the foxes or even permission or not. But unfortunately hindsight is not going to help me now, so i just have to accept that, stop kicking myself, and do everything in my power to put things right! (Well as right as they can be, i cant replace the trees with the huge ones that were there, but i would plant more etc).

I have to agree with Neil when he said that the person has put feelers out, we suspect that he has done his homework on the area of land first, as he is a builder, he must know alot about this sort of thing, and thats why he laughed at us when we said he couldnt do this!

I have spoken to my local councillor and he said that as it is a back alley and the area concerned is not owned by anyone then he has the right to fence it off and there isnt much i can do about it. Even though we said that the area was deemed as a right of way to the houses on the deeds we owned, but as he now owns both of them houses and the right of way is access to both of them houses he can fence it off if he wishes. I can fight it in court but i would obviously have to pay the legal fee's etc which i cant do. The same said for the planning department, they were no help at all, so we have put it in writing and are still waiting for a response from them, if i hear nothing within the next week i will write again and send it recorded delivery to ensure they cant say that they never recieved the letter or any other excuse.
I have an appointment with my local MP on 31st October, so im hoping he will be able to tell me differently but as i have spoken to nearly everyone i can think of and mentioned here, it looks as though he can do it and there isnt a thing i can do to stop him. Because there isnt a protection order on the tree's the environment agency said there was nothing they could do, the same said for the local wildlife trust, as they said it was an overgrown area, the person was entitled to cut it back and clear the area and without protection orders etc they couldnt do anything. They did try to reassure me that the foxes would soon find somewhere else to go.
As for claiming the land...which i would love to do, the law centre said it wouldn't be an easy thing to do as he has already fenced the area off, therefore giving him the right first. Because we have lived there a lot longer, we again could fight it out in court, but it all boils down to the same thing....and what with him being a builder, he probably has a lawyer that has checked all this out beforehand.
I am waiting to see what my MP has to say (he is Labour party and the local council is Tory so hopefully this will help!!) and in the mean time my neighbour has spoken to our local gazette, and also looking into whether he has submitted anything to the council regarding the land, like permission to fence it off etc. I am going round after work today to find out what she has found out.

I do sincerely apologise for not posting back straight away, have had a family emergency, and what with work and my 3 kids, and all this going on, sometimes i dont have the spare time, but i will try harder to make sure as soon as i know more i will post straight away.
And thank you to everyone who has replied and helped...it really is appreciated...it's nice to know youre not on your own!

Lancashire Lad · #43 (**permalink**) 14-10-2008, 12:04 PM

][quote=Tursiops2;350146Hi
The legal term for this is "Adverse Possession", and the period is 12 years, not 5. Your neighbour is in no position to claim AP, but it's just possible that you are. The law has recently been tightened up so it's harder to succeed in a claim, but it's worth looking into. Someone on Gardenlaw will be able to tell you, I'm sure.

Good luck
T2[/QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackbrook Eye

]

Am I missing something here, surely irrespective of any other 'rights or wrongs' the claim for ownership would be at the end of the 5 or 12 year period, not at the beginning as the neighbour has done in this instance ?

Keith

I would try to stress this particular point whenever you speak to anyone "in authority" regarding this matter, and make darned sure that they understand what you are telling them.

If the land, (in theory), is genuinely thought not to belong to anyone, then any person could fence it off and start using it as their own.

However, only after the statutory period had elapsed (be it either 5 or 12 years as mentioned above - and that period would have to pass without any legal challenge regarding ownership) would that person gain legal title to the land.

In the circumstances here, I cannot see how this person could currently obtain planning permission to build any permanent structure on this land - because as yet, he doesn't own it.

Also, you say "...we have checked on the deeds of both my dads and the other neighbour that is helping us, and it shows that it is access to the back gardens of all the houses joined by the alleyway..."

Do you mean that the Deeds confirm access right of way across this actual piece of land? - If they definitely do (and you would probably need a solicitor to clarify) - then you should be within your rights to remove his fencing at point of entry / exit from the land, and exercise your right of access by regularly crossing the land (and the more people you can get to do this on a regular basis the better).

Keep us posted with any updates on how things are going. It will be an absolute travesty if this person is allowed to get away it.

Best regards
Mike.

Cotham Marble · #44 (**permalink**) 15-10-2008, 09:44 AM

Jax,
Thanks for giving us an update and clearing up a number of points.

I really think you need to consider what your realistic options are, the situation you describe seems pretty clear cut with little that would empower you to change it.

Everything appears to devolve down to a simple question regarding the alley. As the Council has stated (albeit in rather vague terms) that this alley is not on the Council's list of maintained streets, nor on its definitive Rights of Way map, the matter is indeed only a Civil issue with which you would likely need legal help at considerable cost to persue.

Your Councillor is wrong to say that 'no one owns the lane' although it maybe that ownership may not be possible to prove. You have said that the builder/developer included in the property Deeds a 'right of access' (which is not the same thing as a public right of way), in which case it is likely that ownership of the alley would have remained with the original landlord. If your father pays an annual land rent then it is probable that whoever he pays that rent to has title to the alley. Many land rents are however vacant and even if contact can be made with a current landlord this would probably not get the alley reinstated, rather they will merely put a charge against the person who has blocked the alley and settle for a one off payment leaving the situation as it is. Neverthless a letter to whoever the land rent is payable might have some effect and will only cost the proce of a stamp.

The biggest weakness in your position that I can see is when you say: "but the main work was always done by the neighbours, and because of the foxes we all decided to leave that area for them as they had babies and we didnt want to disturb them, and thats how its been for 20 or so years."

This is a clear statement that all the houseowners (who under the deeds will have an obligation not to allow the alley to become blocked) have acquiesced in a position where their right to access is no longer exercisable. i.e you were all happy with the situation where you have given up those rights confered by the deeds. The thing is the deeds don't give you an alternative right to create a wildlife area - the rights are specific, they are rights of access and nothing more.

I think, if you really wanted to you could maybe get the alley reinstated, but unless there's some very exceptional clause in the deeds, there's no chance of replanting trees. Maybe it's time to accept the loss and put it down to experience. As I said previously, this has been happening across the country for years and people get very upset when they feel something that they believe is secure turns out not to be so, but our Civil Law is dependent upon individuals proactively taking responsibility.

CM

lincs lass · #45 (**permalink**) 28-10-2008, 10:37 PM

If you have used the land in question for 12yrs you are entitled to it (a neighbour of my late nan took half her garden by fencing it off and the area behind the garden where I used to play as a kid.....her landlord didn't challange it)

I'm suprised the council are letting this happen.........unless there has been a backhander somewhere.

Also a website called gardenlaw may also help. (at least I think that is it's name)