Advice needed!

[Gary Prentice]

11 minutes ago, Doobop said:

The tree is act leaning towards my clients property so if anything it will alleviate some of the weight.

How far does the canopy extend over the boundary?

[Doobop]

How far does the canopy extend over the boundary?

5-6 metres
I will be onsite tomorrow.
I’ll take some photos and let you see

[Gary Prentice]

9 minutes ago, Doobop said:

5-6 metres
I will be onsite tomorrow.
I’ll take some photos and let you see

So that's a fair bit of encroachment. What sort of diameter will the limbs be at the fenceline?

[Doobop]

100mm or so I would say

[openspaceman]

2 hours ago, Gary Prentice said:

As an example of how bad these issues can actually become, I'll write about a tree I got involved with a while back.

 

A fellow contacted me after a limb fell from his neighbours tree, landed on his garage roof and then fell on to three cars on he drive. The tree was a Hybrid poplar around seventy foot tall, protected by a TPO, and had in previous years shed a number of limbs and damaged my clients garage, fencing, a car and other articles.

 

The owners are elderly and until recently the neighbour relationship was cordial. Previously, with the agreement of the owners my client had applied for permission and got consent from the LA to reduce the canopy over his property.The work was done at my clients expense. My client repairs a few cars at home, part time, in his large double garage. Two of the cars recently damaged on his drive also belonged to customers.

 

He seems a reasonable fellow, but who really knows. After this last failure, he has approached the owner in an attempt to do something to prevent further accidents. For whatever reason the relationship has broken down, they are threatening solicitors if he touches the tree (with or without La consent).

 

Prior to contacting me a contractor had been contacted about at least pruning some of the overhanging canopy. This contractor had spoken, I'm told, to the TO and had been advised to steer clear of the situation. He bailed out, leaving my client without help, which I personally think is a unenviable position.

 

The tree is late mature and not in perfect structural condition. I identified four or five limbs of significant diameter and length ( 50 +cm diameter and at least 13 m in length) that are over-extended with clear indications of internal structural defects. Fortunately these are all over the owners garden and if/when they fail would probably remain in that garden. I also identified some limbs growing over the client's property that were more prone to failure, being over extended and with some structural issues such as cavities and or being long epicormics/reaction growth resulting from the previous pruning. I suggested an application to deal with all the issues throughout the crown, to reduce the potential for further failures, but the client said that the owners wouldn't are adamant that they will not do anything nor allow anything to be done to the tree.

 

I suggested providing a report on the tree so that all the immediate problems could be addressed and a contractor could access the tree to get to the part over the boundary. But the relationship is now so bad that the owner will not entertain any communication other than through solicitors. I also suggested that by highlighting the branches over the clients property that, in my opinion, have a high failure potential the onus could be pushed towards the owner, in that they were aware of the dangers, did nothing and in the event of a failure and damage to my clients property would have been negligent. Understandably the client didn't want to just wait for another limb to fail.

I submitted an application to address the issues on that part of the canopy over the clients property, including a note that any objection by the the owners to pruning trespassing limbs would be irrelevant and should be disregarded and that he application must be determined only on the affects to the tree and its amenity. The application was determined/consented within two weeks. 

 

My client is still talking to solicitors. I've suggested getting the contractor he appoints to try to talk to the owner to explain how the work that the council have agreed to is necessary in the hope that they can gain access to the tree. Otherwise they're going to need a huge Mewp which will add hundreds to the job. (I don't hold much hope that sense will prevail, but I've done my job in providing the application and getting consent. 

 

Who'd have neighbours?

 

Interesting and unenviable situation.

 

Bearing in mind that I am not a lawyer; trespassing onto the tree and doing the work would be a civil offence. The only remedy to the owner would be an injunction, which they couldn't get in time, and thence an action for damages.

 

Given the approval for the work by the LA and as long as the rest of the tree was not damaged...

[Gary Prentice]

1 minute ago, openspaceman said:

Interesting and unenviable situation.

 

Bearing in mind that I am not a lawyer; trespassing onto the tree and doing the work would be a civil offence. The only remedy to the owner would be an injunction, which they couldn't get in time, and thence an action for damages.

 

Given the approval for the work by the LA and as long as the rest of the tree was not damaged...

I think that you're probably right. However I can imagine the Police being called (whether they'd attend or not) and an angry tree owner running around would be really difficult, awkward and uncomfortable for the lads on site. 

 

I just want to get all the interested parties together, bang their heads together and find a outcome to make the tree safe as quickly, easily and at the lowest financial cost possible.  Stop being difficult, sort it out to be advantageous to everyone, just don't be fooking awkward 

[Mick Dempsey]

13 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

I think that you're probably right. However I can imagine the Police being called (whether they'd attend or not) and an angry tree owner running around would be really difficult, awkward and uncomfortable for the lads on site. 

 

I just want to get all the interested parties together, bang their heads together and find a outcome to make the tree safe as quickly, easily and at the lowest financial cost possible.  Stop being difficult, sort it out to be advantageous to everyone, just don't be fooking awkward 

Being awkward is the goal of some people, often these tree disputes are the latest in a long line of grievances between the two parties.

 

Most of us on here could fill a book with stories of neighbours arguing over the work.

 

When I was just starting in this game we were taking down a HC and the neighbour came up with some gripe or other, my old boss gave them pretty short shrift, I was rather shocked and asked why he couldn’t be a little more conciliatory.

 

He said “I’ve been hearing this shit for over 40 years, I’m not interested in anything they have to say”

 

I now know exactly what he meant, if it’s legal and the client is paying it’s getting done.

 

@Gary Prentice I would just tell the guy who’s  house keeps getting hit to pay for the mewp and have done with it.

Edited December 6, 2018 by Mick Dempsey

[Gary Prentice]

1 minute ago, Mick Dempsey said:

I would just tell the guy who’s  house keeps getting hit to pay for the mewp and have done with it.

I have said that this might be the only solution, albeit increasing the cost of the job significantly. here's less than a day for a climber in the tree, adding a huge big Mewp will double or triple the cost. That's the part that peeves me and it isn't even his tree.

 

I'm interested as to what the solicitor comes up with, wondering whether because the consent from the LA was based on an application stating the work was necessary due to the potential of failure of the overhanging limbs, that would be sufficient to get a court judgement to get the owner to do the work at their own expense.

 

 

[openspaceman]

35 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

I'm interested as to what the solicitor comes up with, wondering whether because the consent from the LA was based on an application stating the work was necessary due to the potential of failure of the overhanging limbs, that would be sufficient to get a court judgement to get the owner to do the work at their own expense.

 

I wonder if it is covered by the party wall act, which normally gives one the right to access your property to do maintenance work where not feasible otherwise.

[Yournamehere]

14 minutes ago, openspaceman said:

I wonder if it is covered by the party wall act, which normally gives one the right to access your property to do maintenance work where not feasible otherwise.

Ooh! Easements and quasi easements regarding free light and drainage?

I am not a Lawyer.