The photographic chronology
Google Earth screenshots show imagery dated 23 September 2017, 8 July 2019, 26 April 2021 and 15 May 2025. All four are displayed with the source date, scale and attribution. The differently framed views are not a measured tree-count survey.
IMG_5497 and IMG_5493 record capture dates of 2 August 2024 in the supplied file metadata; IMG_5518 records 3 August 2024. IMG_5567 and IMG_5569 record 5 August 2024. These dates identify the files, not an independently authenticated camera clock. Hidden device and GPS metadata is removed from the publication copies; the photographic content is retained.
6 August 2024: the reported concern
In the 103-page SRA exhibit bundle, physical pages 17–18 reproduce Mr J’s complaint, subsequent aerial-image supply and David Dyball’s reply. Mr Dyball, identified as Operations Admin Officer with Forestry Commission England, says he cannot see a current licence and has referred the matter to the local Woodland Officer.
Read the reply at full size ↗
9–10 August 2024: the Bexley correspondence
The cleaner four-page supplied copy is titled “13 Emails with Henry Bexley”. The visit notes identify Henry Bexley as Woodland Officer, Forestry Commission England, at the Kennford/Exeter office.
Read the four supplied email pages as images →
- Pages 3–4: Mayo’s request at 11:10 on 9 August, including the chain’s appearance.
- Pages 2–3: Bexley’s 17:54 visit notes, distinguishing some observations from information supplied by Mayo. The notes discuss application 018/2760/2024, timber quantities, stump condition, a minidigger and the path.
- Pages 1–2: Mayo’s 19:29 reply about discussing the notes with his solicitor, possible use before the judge and sharing with Torridge.
- Page 1: Bexley’s 19:38 no-further-felling advice; Mayo’s agreement on 10 August; the 8 November 2024 Cornwell-to-Cornwell forwarding header.
The original 2024 assessment recorded no signs of fresh cutting and no suspicion of commercial firewood sales. The family disputes its adequacy. A later licence or enforcement decision has not yet been identified in the reviewed material.
The complete four-page email chain
Reproductions of “13 Emails with Henry Bexley”, in the supplied PDF’s original page order. The embedded thread runs backwards through the correspondence: later replies appear first. Click any page to open the full-size image.
Contact email, telephone and office-address details have been visibly covered. Names, roles, dates, message wording and page boundaries are retained.
Open page 1 at full size ↗
Open page 2 at full size ↗
Open page 3 at full size ↗
Open page 4 at full size ↗
The 1987 conveyance: clause 2(ii)
The supplied “1987 Conveyance” copy, page 2, contains clause 2(ii). It requires due care and skill and avoidance, as far as possible, of damage, injury, nuisance or disturbance when exercising the granted rights. The article quotes that clause directly; the family refers to it as clause 2.2.
The hook, photograph and interim order
Physical page 28 of the SRA exhibit bundle contains the interim order in claim L00BP144. It is headed 13 August 2024, with an undertaking expressed to be performed by 20:00 on 7 August. The order records an interim undertaking by Mr Mayo, pending disposal of the interim-injunction application, to use the driveway for residential purposes; agricultural vehicles are excluded and commercial vehicles for domestic purposes are permitted. These are the recorded interim terms, rather than a final determination of the easement. Page 29 contains the hook-and-chain photograph and the family’s caption identifying it with the visit. The photograph itself has no displayed capture timestamp.
Mr J’s current recollection is that Deputy District Judge Offen recognised a problem with the route’s use. The defendants’ chronology to 31 December 2024, pages 25–26, discusses the interim terms and attributes a further oral remark about the continued existence of the right of way to their hearing note. That chronology expressly reserves the oral remark for transcript verification.
The earlier Primary Defence
The 43-page Primary Defence document supplied under the filename “PD1 Aug 7” is internally dated 3 August 2024. Page 29 shows the excavator/working area, page 30 an aerial image, page 31 the bucket, pages 32–33 driveway cracks, page 34 a scarred tree and page 35 the driveway setting. Mr J identifies this as material prepared for the earlier hearing before Judge Offen.
The tree strike and safety account
PD1, page 34, alleges that a heavy tractor conducting business with Mr Mayo hit the tree beside the house; page 35 shows the driveway setting. The original photograph “After original Impact by tractor” corresponds to page 34 without the annotation. Its metadata records 3 August 2024 at 12:47:44; this is the photograph’s date, not a proved collision date.
On 19 September 2026, Mr J identified the driver as Mr Folland, associated him with Tarka Springs, and described the equipment as a basket for forestry logs. He also supplied the approximate two-foot clearance, old timber support, single exit and concrete-reinforcement concerns. He also places the tree approximately five metres from the house and recalls Mr Folland testifying that he lost control and swerved into the tree to avoid hitting the building. These details are attributed to his account, rather than to what the close-up photograph shows; no verbatim transcript is quoted.
The family’s working judgment-rebuttal schedule, page 80, item 161, says the judgment recorded Folland’s explanation of the accident and a dispute over the extent of the damage. It records Miss E’s denial that she enlarged or manipulated the damage and calls for comparison with the contemporary photographs, correspondence, vehicle evidence and transcript. The schedule labels itself provisional; it is the source for this account of that dispute. At page 90, item 191, it also links the original pleaded tractor accident to the safety and suitability of the route, and challenges the judgment’s treatment of the history of vehicle use.
The planning-access wording
The amended defence dated 30 March 2025, page 28, paragraph 59, quotes application 1/0638/2024/AGR as saying the current access is unsuitable for heavy/long loads because it is narrow, steep and winding. The article attributes the quotation to that defence; the original application form has not yet been retrieved in this review.
The particularised allegations
The corrected 26-page oral argument for the October 2025 strike-out hearing sets out the forestry allegations at pages 6–7. It alleges misleading access evidence, omitted machinery evidence and court reliance, and seeks the full communications and review of the injunction.
The latest standalone Annex E located is 24 pages, internally updated 6 February 2026. Its forestry allegation is at page 12. These are the family’s allegations and submissions. Annex E versions and response record →
18–19 August 2026: the judgment challenge
The eight-page statement dated 18 August was sent with the 19 August email “Statement for the Court Record and Public Record”. Page 5 challenges the treatment of felling and conveyance evidence. Page 4 says some CCTV material was not fully filed when the statement was prepared. On 19 September 2026, Mr J clarified that every attachment reached the court: the family printed the full material and also sent it via WeTransfer. This source note records that clarification alongside the earlier statement; the hearing-specific delivery and exhibit records are among the records requested. On the same date, Mr J said the one-tree account was given under oath, that Miss E objected to its truthfulness and called it contempt, and that neither a substantive answer nor further judicial questioning followed. He also described personally presenting the material before Judge Paul Mitchell and its alleged lack of meaningful examination at the later trial. These hearing details are his recollection; the exact testimony and judgment passages are the records requested in FOR-05 and FOR-08.
The July 2026 final order, headed 29 July and dated 22 July in its body, declares a general right of way serving Higher Barley Hayes and gives the subsequent court outcome. The family challenges it. Existing court-outcome source note →
The licensing question
The relevant record is the licence or applicable exception for the particular trees, land, volumes and dates. Forestry Commission guidance describes exceptions as well as the normal licence requirement.