AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

OVERHANGING BOUGHS ON MOTORBUS ROUTES.

8th June 1916, Page 15
8th June 1916
Page 15
Page 15, 8th June 1916 — OVERHANGING BOUGHS ON MOTORBUS ROUTES.
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

At a special _sitting of the East Grinstead Bench on Thursday, the 1st inst., Arthur Hepburn Hastie, solicitor, of 66, Lincoln's Inn Fields, London, was summoned as owner of Placeland, East Grinstead, in regard to trees which overhang the London Road, East Grinstead, and which the Urban District Council alleged were dangerous to passengers on the tops of omnibuses now running between Redhill and Hartfield. Mr. F. S. White appeared on behalf of the Urban District Council, Mr. St. John Field represented the defendant, and Mr T. Bacon Phillips watched the case on behalf of the East Surrey Traction Co., Ltd.

Preliminary objection was taken that the jurisdiction of the

• Court was ousted by there being a bona-fide claim of right. Mr. Field said many important questions of considerable antiquity' were involved. The claim of right having been raised at the very earliest possible moment, he submitted there was a bona-fide claim of right to have these trees here against the public in general and against the traction company who brought this new form of traffic on the roads. Mr. White said there was no question as to the trees belonging to Mr. Hastie. The only matter was whether a portion of the trees was an obstruction to the highway. The Court over-ruled the objection, and Mr. Field contended that the Urban Council had no locus standi in the matter ; the only party who had any power to deal with it was the County Council. The Chairman held that the complaint had been

properly laid. • . Evidence was then given that at places the branches of trees were 9 ft., 13 ft. 9 ins., 11 ft., and 12 ft. 7 ins, from the road, and extended quite halfway across the highway. Mr. W. E. Woollam, surveyor, said there was no doubt but what the trees caused an obstruction to the bus traffic. The trees ought to be cut 16 ft. from the road surface. It was necessary for anyone on the bus to stoop below the guard-rail when passing under the trees.

Mr. A. H. Hawkins, secretary to the East Surrey Traction Co., Ltd., said the branches of the trees were dangerous for a considerable distance. Some were actually below the guardrail, and when carried along flew back with great force; there had been many complaints of injuries.

Corporal J. Dace spoketo being injured by the trees, and receiving compensation from the bus company.

Defendant said the trees were probably planted by his great grandfather about 1760. Nearly always, when asked by the Urban Council, he had cut the trees back. He had done so as an act of courtesy and not of right. He was not prepared to cut the trees to allow a new kind of traffic. Cross-examined, he said he would be prepared to cut the trees so that hay and straw carts could pass under them.

Mr. Field submitted that the road was dedicated a main highway in 1882, and it was dedicated with the trees overhanging it. They were an existing obstruction at that date, and the public had to take that road subject to that obstruction remaining. Mr. White said the road had been a public highway from time immemorial. They did not ask for the trees to be rooted out bodily, they merely asked for modern growth which had become an obstruction to be cut back.

• The Chairman said the complainants were entitled to an Order, and they made an Order for defendant to lop the trees and remove the obstruction within 10 days.

Defendant said if the Order was to make him cut 16 ft. or 17 ft. up, to meet the needs of the motorbuses, then he had • not done with the case. He was prepared to remove branches coming within 9 ft. or 10 ft. of the roadway, but not to give way to the bus traffic. The Chairman : We do not think there will be very much between the contending parties if an Order is made to cut the trees to allow such things as hay and straw to pass under them unimpeded. Suppose we say to suit traffic now on the road.

Defendant : No, not traffic now on the road; traffic as it was before April I will agree to.

The Chairman: You will receive the Order in due course; and we trust you will consider it in a friendly way. Defendant : Not if it is to suit the buses.

The Chairman announced that the Order would be for the trees to be cut 16 ft. above the roadway.

Defendant : Then I am not prepared to accept the Order.


comments powered by Disqus