Council threatens legal action against councillor who cut down vegetation blocking path

Given that it took a month just to respond to an email

A month!? You were lucky!! We used to dream of receiving a reply from Lancashire Constabulary to an email query within a month!!! Now they just don't reply at all, but the silver lining is there's a lot to meticulously report to the PCC.

Secateurs and a trekking pole here for beating down nettles. They've got me bang to rights.

biker phil wrote:

Shit! I'm a criminal too! I do exactly the same, I carry some secateurs in my bar bag to deal with greenery overhanging the cycle paths on my commute, particularly the thorny brambles at eye height. I get praise from other cyclists who pass as I'm doing it though so it's not all bad.

In fact I also have some secateurs in my rucksack for clearing overgrown footpaths when we are out walking. Double criminal!

Please provide me with your full name and address, and dates and times that you rebelliously attacked this innocent undergrowth so that I can report you to the police.

Chapeau!

I do this sort of thing too.  If a branch whips me in the face because it's too long/too low, then (if I am not in a hurry to get somewhere) will often cut it off so it doesn't hit someone else.

I was under the impression that it was a socially responsible thing to do. 

Clearly the Conservatives of Nuneaton would disagree... 

brooksby wrote:

I do this sort of thing too.  If a branch whips me in the face because it's too long/too low, then (if I am not in a hurry to get somewhere) will often cut it off so it doesn't hit someone else.

I was under the impression that it was a socially responsible thing to do. 

Clearly the Conservatives of Nuneaton would disagree... 

I'm guessing they want to discourage this because while helpful, this actually could put them in legal jeapardy if they did nothing to discourage it and someone got hurt.

Jenova20 wrote:

brooksby wrote:

I do this sort of thing too.  If a branch whips me in the face because it's too long/too low, then (if I am not in a hurry to get somewhere) will often cut it off so it doesn't hit someone else.

I was under the impression that it was a socially responsible thing to do. 

Clearly the Conservatives of Nuneaton would disagree... 

I'm guessing they want to discourage this because while helpful, this actually could put them in legal jeapardy if they did nothing to discourage it and someone got hurt.

It would put them in legal jeopardy too if they were sued for failing in their duty to keep the carriageways clear for use.

Having torn a rucksack that snagged on a low hanging branch stump someone had cut off (so rest of the branch didnt hang down onto the path) i can understand why they dont want people cutting back blockages.  In my case it looked just like thin branches but hid the thick sharp edged cut of a larger branch hidden in the leaves. Left a graze on my shoulder and wouldve pulled me off my bike had the bag not torn.

Obviously i put it down to entirely my fault for just brushing through and not going around, but if you do try to 'improve' the situation, cut right back, not just enough for you to squeeze past. It could cause an unanticipated incident.

How do you know who cut the stump ?

hirsute wrote:

How do you know who cut the stump ?

Uncertain but the council are looking for diminutive person with short arms that they can address a legal compliance letter to....

(I generally try to cut it back as if I was doing it to shrubbery in my own garden; I don't ever just take the very ends off)

I think the point of all of this is, that if there was greenery growing out into a road and forcing motorists to divert or to go out-and-around (maybe on the other side of the road, who could say?) then we all know that the council teams or the Highways Agency or someone would be out there with loppers and saws and fluorescent vested chain gangs in about thity seconds flat.

But, you know, it's only cyclists.

Could also cause an unanticipated accident if it were not cut back. I suspect the only difference is this bizarre idea that if at all possible someone must be held liable for others' misadventures, even if they had reduced the overall probability of an accident.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Mr Kondakor gets my vote, or at least he would if I lived in Nuneaton. His "crime" is not so much that he actually went and got his hands dirty to sort out a problem but that he has exposed a useless council of elected representatives who cannot get the job done.

That's a good point; I wonder how much the barristers letter cost the council?

They all have daft names these days.

Democracy means they look after the elections and governance and council/committee support

Planning is well, planning !

Public Protection - pest control, H&S, licencing, food safety standards maybe building control (or that might come under planning).

I can only assume there is a tree preservation order as claiming criminal damage is bollocks.

Bin. Go! In one!

It's more likely a matter of they not having the public liability insurance needed to do works in or near a highway. Just the council covering ther backs incase they'd left debris on the path which caused an accident

eburtthebike wrote:

Wow!  Hydraulic press to crack a nut.  A quiet word at a council meeting would have been perfectly adequate, along with congratulations and thanks for being public-spirited, not threats of prosecution.  Nothing, I'm sure, to do with the fact that he isn't a tory, and I'm totally sure that any tory doing the same would have received the same message.

Anyway, if South Glos council would like to prosecute me, I used to do the same three years ago when I lived there.  Riding my Bakfiets on the paths in Bradley Stoke became impossible because of the overgrowing vegetation, so I bought a battery powered hedge trimmer which made quick work of the obstructing plants.

Most councils have had to cut back (not much pun intended) on activities like this that it happens once a year if you're lucky.

I'm sure the fact that it's a Tory council v Green councillor is totally coincidental.....

possibly it is, as anyone has had to deal with the thorny (sic) issue of trimming bushes overhanging your garden from a neighbours property, it can be a legal minefield and technically can be considered criminal damage if you just cut stuff down without landowners permission, however helpful you are being, just as if youd gone to the park and dug up the councils prize winning rose beds instead.

so I can understand why they felt the need for the letter, rather than some friendlier quiet advice because they need to head off any possibility of legal recourse, or comebacks as a result and disassociate themselves as it being official council taken action

the danger is also, and this has happened, if people have reported the overhanging vegetation to the council, and the council send out a team to do the work after the well meaning individual has done their bit of pruning, the council team dont query by how much further it has to be cut back and will simply cut back whatever is left, including to the point of totally removing whats left.

Awavey wrote:

possibly it is, as anyone has had to deal with the thorny (sic) issue of trimming bushes overhanging your garden from a neighbours property, it can be a legal minefield and technically can be considered criminal damage if you just cut stuff down without landowners permission,

As I understand it, and I'm no legal authority, but if your neighbour's plants overhang your garden you are perfectly within your rights to trim them, as long as you offer the neighbour the stuff you've cut off.  Otherwise the owners of fast growing plants would own the earth by now.