Tree Removal - Owner is unwilling to pay anything towards the cost.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

13 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

Or am I wrong? Is the MPA being used day-and-daily down there on Albion's Plain?

I've only got 1 example to call upon from about 5-6 years ago where a friend's mother was 'compelled' by a letter from the LA to remove a road-side tree that was deemed to be a hazard to the highway.  Note from the pictures the nature of the isolated, single track, very low traffic volume of the road, the evident decay in the stem and that the tree was reduced far beyond that which would have been necessary to remove the perception of a hazard.  (I'd have retained a standing stem for ecological / biodiversity value (and to annoy the LA)) even if I didn't like it....

 

As it happens, the reduction was done by a farmer + telehandler with the son on a pallet in shorts and flip flops with a chainsaw and no TM which very nearly ended in disaster (no exaggeration - but that's by the by.)  

 

I had to laugh at the situation where the LA's perception of 'risk of harm' resulted in a set of actions which resulted in (albeit voluntarily) a set of circumstances which by far exceeded the probability of harm than the tree ever did....  ? 

 

(Is it 62% by population, land mass or some other measure??  ?)

[jaime bray]

not pedantic of you,  point noted.... Would assist be more suited than the word ensure?

 

i reread that post of mine many times before pressing send. Trying to 'ensure' that nothing got hauled over the coals. How naive i was. Haha

 

I can not remember the cases where misc prov act was used on trees as such, but think theres been few in past where structires have posed risk to public safety, and the act was used, although this may have been to land in public/ local authority ownership as opposed to private ownership as is the case here...and remember having discussions about it when studying so mentioned.

[Gary Prentice]

5 hours ago, daltontrees said:

Or am I wrong? Is the MPA being used day-and-daily down there on Albion's Plain?

In my experience LAs avoid it like the plague, unless the threat of harm involves the highway, a playground full of kids or the legal departments actual office 

1 hour ago, jaime bray said:

i reread that post of mine many times before pressing send. Trying to 'ensure' that nothing got hauled over the coals. How naive i was. Haha

 

Almost right is better than dead wrong 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

4 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

the legal departments actual office 

[daltontrees]

9 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

I've only got 1 example to call upon from about 5-6 years ago where a friend's mother was 'compelled' by a letter from the LA to remove a road-side tree that was deemed to be a hazard to the highway.  Note from the pictures the nature of the isolated, single track, very low traffic volume of the road, the evident decay in the stem and that the tree was reduced far beyond that which would have been necessary to remove the perception of a hazard.  (I'd have retained a standing stem for ecological / biodiversity value (and to annoy the LA)) even if I didn't like it....

 

As it happens, the reduction was done by a farmer + telehandler with the son on a pallet in shorts and flip flops with a chainsaw and no TM which very nearly ended in disaster (no exaggeration - but that's by the by.)  

 

I had to laugh at the situation where the LA's perception of 'risk of harm' resulted in a set of actions which resulted in (albeit voluntarily) a set of circumstances which by far exceeded the probability of harm than the tree ever did....  ? 

 

(Is it 62% by population, land mass or some other measure??  ?)

 

 

Seems like one where the Highways Act would be the appropriate one.

(2) Where it appears to a competent authority for any highway, or for any other road or footpath to which the public has access—

(a) that any hedge, tree or shrub is dead, diseased, damaged or insecurely rooted, and

(b) that by reason of its condition it, or part of it, is likely to cause danger by falling on the highway, road or footpath,

the authority may, by notice either to the owner of the hedge, tree or shrub or to the occupier of the land on which it is situated, require him within 14 days from the date of service of the notice so to cut or fell it as to remove the likelihood of danger.

And it's 62% by land mass. Scotland has almost half as many trees by land mass than England, but Norn Ireland has pitifuly few trees. Just making a typical point that if the OP doesn't say here he/she is, it's always assumed it's England. A couple of posts on Arbtalk have gone wquie far along with advice on law before it transpired that the poster was in Scotland and the advice was therefore, statutorily, guff. Cornwall ot yet having gained independence, I guess you're still part of the 62%.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

8 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

Seems like one where the Highways Act would be the appropriate one.

(2) Where it appears to a competent authority for any highway, or for any other road or footpath to which the public has access—

 

(a) that any hedge, tree or shrub is dead, diseased, damaged or insecurely rooted, and

 

(b) that by reason of its condition it, or part of it, is likely to cause danger by falling on the highway, road or footpath,

 

the authority may, by notice either to the owner of the hedge, tree or shrub or to the occupier of the land on which it is situated, require him within 14 days from the date of service of the notice so to cut or fell it as to remove the likelihood of danger.

 

 

And it's 62% by land mass. Scotland has almost half as many trees by land mass than England, but Norn Ireland has pitifuly few trees. Just making a typical point that if the OP doesn't say here he/she is, it's always assumed it's England. A couple of posts on Arbtalk have gone wquie far along with advice on law before it transpired that the poster was in Scotland and the advice was therefore, statutorily, guff. Cornwall ot yet having gained independence, I guess you're still part of the 62%.

Prefer to think of myself as part of the 51.9%  

[daltontrees]

6 hours ago, jaime bray said:

not pedantic of you,  point noted.... Would assist be more suited than the word ensure?

 

i reread that post of mine many times before pressing send. Trying to 'ensure' that nothing got hauled over the coals. How naive i was. Haha

 

I can not remember the cases where misc prov act was used on trees as such, but think theres been few in past where structires have posed risk to public safety, and the act was used, although this may have been to land in public/ local authority ownership as opposed to private ownership as is the case here...and remember having discussions about it when studying so mentioned.

I'd give you 'instigate a legal process whereby'. There's no-one more pedantic than the courts, and one doesn't want to go there on a vague misunderstanding, because someone there will be a professional pedant and might just edify you in a thoroughly humbling way.

[daltontrees]

6 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Prefer to think of myself as part of the 51.9%  

Bow before the Queen, lowly subject. The assembly of her commoners have in her name decreed it thus. Her law is law even in your aspirationally distinct part of her realm.

[Smith126]

Evening all,

 

Massive thanks for all the feed back, the conclusion is that we will be going into remove the tree, and leave the responsibility of recovering the costs with the client. 

 

As many of you have said it’s not our call, we’re just there to do the job, in a professional manner. 

 

We have priced to remove the waste, the owner has been given the option to retain the waste, but turned it down, which has been given in writing. Covers my arse. 

 

Its been really interesting to hear all the different sides. 

 

Thanks all. 

[Gary Prentice]

Thanks for the update, sounds like the outcome, for you at least.