Lawyers have argued that two men should not be convicted of chopping down a protected tree on green belt land because Havering Council has lost important documents.
Richard Clemence and Miles Leslie went on trial this week at Romford Magistrates’ Court over the felling of a tree in a Hornchurch woodland two years ago.
Residents from nearby Copthorne Gardens stood in front of bulldozers on March 6, 2021, when workmen began felling trees on the land.
Brendon Moorhouse, representing Mr Clemence, said the community was "very emotionally involved" with the site.
Mr Clemence, 68, of Nags Head Lane, Upminster, who owns the land and wants to develop it, is now awaiting a judge’s verdict over whether he was entitled to chop down the tree.
So is Mr Leslie, 34, of Kings Drive in Thames Ditton, described as Mr Clemence’s agent, who supervised the site clearance on March 6, 2021.
“They have been very honest and open about their future intentions for the land,” said Mr Moorhouse.
Each man is charged with causing a contravention of tree preservation regulations by cutting down, uprooting or wilfully destroying a tree.
Prosecutor Rowan Jenkins put it to Mr Leslie on Thursday, June 29, that he had not only breached an area tree preservation order (TPO) but instructed workers “to destroy any evidence”.
A contractor had earlier testified that Mr Leslie told him, after a large oak tree was felled, to dig out the trunk and roots.
Mr Jenkins suggested this was so that nobody could count the rings in the stump and determine the tree’s age.
But Mr Leslie denied giving any such instructions. He claimed the tree had been cut so short that it would have been “near impossible” to dig them out.
“If I wanted to have it destroyed I would have had it burnt or had it taken off site,” Mr Leslie testified.
The prosecution case is that the men felled a tree which was protected by the area TPO, put in place in 1987.
The defendants’ case is that Havering Council requested the pruning of some trees which were overhanging a highway.
Mr Leslie said they first “wanted to clear a safe area behind the back of those trees that were to be cut”.
The court heard two JCB drivers and two chainsaw operators attended on March 6, 2021, accompanied by Mr Leslie, to carry out the works.
Mr Leslie admitted that he and Mr Clemence knew there was a TPO on the order and that neither he nor Mr Clemence contacted the council or any other expert to ensure they did not breach it.
“I didn’t assume it to be necessary,” said Mr Leslie. “I’m not an expert, no, but I have considerable experience and knowledge.”
He said he had assessed the height and width of the tree in question and felt it was not old enough to be covered by the 1987 TPO – although he admitted that one could “potentially” have been covered.
But Mr Moorhouse and Nicola Strachan, representing Mr Leslie, questioned whether the TPO was even valid.
Two Havering Council officers had testified that only a portion of the 1987 order could be located. The missing pages included the detail of what the order prohibited, the court was told.
Mr Moorhouse claimed that updated planning laws, introduced in 2012, made it a requirement for TPOs to be available for review, but Havering was “missing half of the important information”.
“In my submission, that is fatal to the prosecution’s case,” he said.
“If the council that makes the order ceases to display the order, that order will no longer be a valid order.”
Mr Jenkins countered that the defendants were “acting at all times, purportedly, with full knowledge of the order.”
“The people being prosecuted in this case are the landowner and the land agent, two people who, on their own admission, are not only aware of the full history of the site, including before the order was made.
"But we know when the order was made initially, all of that documentation was forwarded to solicitors acting for [Mr Clemence’s] family,” he said.
Mr Moorhouse said that just because his older relatives had been in the loop, that did not mean Mr Clemence had intimate knowledge of the document.
“One doesn’t end up imbued with the knowledge of one’s whole family,” he said, adding that area TPOs were “meant to be short-term, emergency measures, meant to be reviewed regularly”.
“We know that the council weren’t reviewing any of these things,” he said. “They weren’t displaying the full information as required.”
District Judge Paul Donegan will deliver his verdicts at Barkingside Magistrates’ Court on July 25.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article