Galashiels trees felled 'illegally', inquiry rules

by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

Some of the oldest and largest beech trees in the Galashiels area may have been lost as a result of unauthorised felling in a 150-year-old forested area known as Crotchet Knowe, a planning inquiry was told.

Now, landowners Lynda and Gordon Stoddart, of Melrose Road, Galashiels have failed in an appeal against a so-called Restocking Direction imposed on them by Scottish Forestry [SF] which instructs them to plant at least 160 replacement trees of similar species to those felled. 

The Stoddarts had claimed the trees they took down were on garden ground and therefore not covered by felling restrictions. But Scottish Planning Reporter Alasdair Edwards has dismissed the appeal and ordered them to carry out the replanting by March 31st 2023.

Paperwork associated with the case, including the decision notice issued on June 10th is published on the Planning and Environmental Appeals website.

A report written by Scottish Forestry following an anonymous tip-off in January 2021 said the agency had received reports of tree felling and substantial earthworks that looked to be development (rather than forestry related) in mature woodland at Crotchet Knowe. 

"The majority of the felling works are located behind the bungalow that sits to the south of Melrose Road (No. 24) on the western fringe of Langlee . Aerial photographs suggest that most of the earthworks appear to be taking place on a previously wooded part of the site and may be damaging remaining trees around the periphery of the earthworks.

"Some large tree stumps have been removed and deposited down the steep wooded bank at the south end of the earthworks and there are almost certainly others buried beneath the earthworks. This mostly mature mixed broadleaved woodland is thought to include a few of the biggest/oldest beech trees in the Galashiels area and looks to be a valuable link in the local woodland habitat/landscape network (linking Langlee Woods higher up to the blue/green network along the Gala Water corridor below) and providing an attractive buffer/screen in the narrow gap between Galashiels and Langlee.

SF investigated the tree felling in terms of the Felling Regulations (unauthorised felling) but also provided information to the local authority enforcement team as the earthworks appeared to be development related. On arrival on site Nick Forsyth and Greg Macfarlane, from Scottish Forestry, measured all available stumps providing an indicative volume of removed timber. Some remaining lengths of felled timber were also measured. 

Significant evidence of timber processing was identified, suggesting that a large amount of timber had already been removed from site.

According to the report: " Mrs Stoddart refused to provide the name of the contractor used to fell the trees and did not say where the timber from the site has been taken. Mrs Stoddart offered a restock proposal, but it did not meet the like‐for‐like requirements, so this was rejected by SF. A restock direction was sent to the landowner requesting that the whole area be restocked with similar species."

In their submission to the Reporter the owners contended no offence had been committed where the plot known as 24 Melrose Road, Galashiels was considered as a residential plot made up of dwelling, hardstanding and garden grounds.

The Stoddarts contested the SF designation and explained how the lack of maintenance and change in circumstances of the previous owner had allowed substantial over grow to occur. 

"The owners have made it clear from the outset the plans they have for the residential plot and have acted in good faith to amicably resolve this dispute. However in the view of the owners, SF have acted merely to escalate. From the initial request for an ‘outline plan’, during a pandemic whilst there were Government’s restriction on movement etc., which was rejected within hours of submission to where we are today. 

"The owners have shown that the whole plot confirms to an acceptable definition of garden and domestic curtilage and was purchased as a ‘whole’ residential plot. The owners would further emphasise here that a change in physical characteristics in an overall garden area cannot be deemed to negate that part from being a garden."

But Scottish Forestry countered: "This case relates to the appellants wish to build a new house on the land where the woodland removal occurred. The appellant would have been aware of that the land included woodland from the sales brochure. 

"SF does not accept the case made by the appellant that the felled trees were part of their garden. SF has proved that 15.45 cubic metres of non-exempt timber was felled without permission. Therefore this review concludes that the Conservancy acted appropriately and reasonably in issuing the Restocking Direction as all the evidence required to issue a restocking direction was in place and is still valid."

Mr Edwards agrees with that assertion in his decision notice.

"I find that the area subject to felling does not currently constitute garden ground and that there is nothing substantially present to suggest that it was previously used for such purposes. I find that the land subject to felling was woodland. 

"This is clearly evidenced by the fact that the land is identified in the National Forestry Inventory (2019) as a ‘broadleaved woodland’; shown on aerial photography with a large canopy prior to felling; identified on the original ordnance survey mapping from 1843-1882 as the “Crochet Knowe” (an area of mixed woodland); and continues to be identified on the current ordnance survey as an area of woodland." 

Mr Edwards says there is little doubt that the felled trees comprised those annotated on the original ordnance survey mapping as measurements of the tree stumps by Scottish Forestry indicate that the felled trees were in excess of 150 years old. This indicates that a continuous woodland had been in situ on the land for a significant period prior to felling.

" I find that the land prior to felling was not garden ground and, consequently, was not exempt from the offence of unauthorised felling. I also note that the appellants have considered using the land to build an eco-house with pre-application advice having been sought from Scottish Borders Council for the erection of a house. This appears at odds with the aspiration to use the land as a garden.

"In any event, there is no planning permission for a house on the land which would warrant an exemption for the unauthorised felling. I find that the land where felling occurred was woodland at the time of felling and did not, and does not, constitute garden ground. There are no other exemptions which apply or have been successfully argued. Consequently, the appeal that the land was exempt from the offence of unauthorised felling fails."