After trees were handed ASBOs and ordered to be cut down, the council was dubbed “crazy.”
After a pair of 70ft tall trees were handed ASBOs in a row over whether they were hedges or not, BRISTOL City Council has been dubbed “crazy.”
The evergreens were legally defined as a hedge under the same statutes that govern anti-social behavior orders, therefore the council issued a notice to cut them down. The council made this decision after a local neighbor complained that the trees were blocking their light. The decision has been dubbed “stupid” by some locals.
Local children love to play in the woods, which are home to a variety of birds, squirrels, and other creatures.
“Trees producing a nuisance as defined by the Anti-Social Behaviour Act – High Hedges section 8,” reads a sign connected to the trees.
When questioned about the decision, the council stated that it was acting in accordance with national legislation that “designates this type of tree as a hedge.”
“It is ludicrous that the council can designate these two big trees as an antisocial hedge,” a local resident, Chris Coldbreath, told Bristol Live.
“I read the definition of the statute, and it is so broad that they may do this,” says the author. But, let’s be honest, the act’s goal is to prevent the proliferation of 10-foot hedges along borders.
“It wasn’t planned to cut down 70-foot trees that had been in an open area for years, trees that were home to a variety of wildlife.
“The council appears to have chosen to label the trees as an antisocial hedge to allow it to chop them down because of the broadness of the definition.”
When it comes to trees, the council, according to Mr Coldbreath, is also defying its own rules.
According to the policy, the city does not “remove or prune council-owned trees to improve natural light.”
The policy goes on to say that “there is no general right to light in law,” and that “where natural light is being blocked by the growth of a hedge, action may be taken to remedy the situation under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act’s High Hedges [section].”
“The reality is they may obstruct a little light to a few residences, but the principle is clear – no felling,” Mr Coldbreath added.
“I just don’t get why they’d want to do this when it’s against their own policies. “Brinkwire Summary News” in its entirety.