Overhanging branches

[Mark Bolam]

Flat fe

49 minutes ago, Ratman said:

What sort of roof is on it Mark? Could you not span the weight on the roof using ladders/boards etc, reduce/remove limbs in small weight sections as to preserve you and the roof from the inevitable obviously it would take a bit longer. But safety in mind and all that. Or are you literally knackered without Victor Meldrew’s permission of access for your anchors and rigging etc?

Flat felt.

You still couldn’t remove the limbs without climbing the tree.

It’s not a polesaw and ladders tiddler, everything would have to be rigged.

[Ratman]

Victor wants a dose of chloroform for a day then [emoji6]

[openspaceman]

4 hours ago, Mark Bolam said:

Where do they stand legally?

Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992

 

But it does require a court order

 

"

(1)A person—

(a)who, for the purpose of carrying out works to any land (the “dominant land”), desires to enter upon any adjoining or adjacent land (the “servient land”), and

(b)who needs, but does not have, the consent of some other person to that entry,

may make an application to the court for an order under this section (“an access order”) against that other person.

(2)On an application under this section, the court shall make an access order if, and only if, it is satisfied—

(a)that the works are reasonably necessary for the preservation of the whole or any part of the dominant land; and

(b)that they cannot be carried out, or would be substantially more difficult to carry out, without entry upon the servient land;

but this subsection is subject to subsection (3) below.

(3)The court shall not make an access order in any case where it is satisfied that, were it to make such an order—

(a)the respondent or any other person would suffer interference with, or disturbance of, his use or enjoyment of the servient land, or

(b)the respondent, or any other person (whether of full age or capacity or not) in occupation of the whole or any part of the servient land, would suffer hardship,

to such a degree by reason of the entry (notwithstanding any requirement of this Act or any term or condition that may be imposed under it) that it would be unreasonable to make the order."

[Mark Bolam]

Thanks mate.

 

TBH if he refuses to be reasonable I’ll probably just threaten to batter him if he kicks off about me climbing his trees.

Holding pensioners to ransom, who are the village stalwarts, is the act of a cretinous bully.

[Gary Prentice]

4 hours ago, Con said:

I will check. It's an ugly sycamore on common land. Seeded itself at some point. It is now covered with ivy, probably not harming it, but not doing it any favours aesthetically. (That's another issue)

The other issue is that I could really do with getting in the tree to set up

 

2 hours ago, openspaceman said:

Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992

 

But it does require a court order

 

"

(1)A person—

(a)who, for the purpose of carrying out works to any land (the “dominant land”), desires to enter upon any adjoining or adjacent land (the “servient land”), and

(b)who needs, but does not have, the consent of some other person to that entry,

may make an application to the court for an order under this section (“an access order”) against that other person.

(2)On an application under this section, the court shall make an access order if, and only if, it is satisfied—

(a)that the works are reasonably necessary for the preservation of the whole or any part of the dominant land; and

(b)that they cannot be carried out, or would be substantially more difficult to carry out, without entry upon the servient land;

but this subsection is subject to subsection (3) below.

(3)The court shall not make an access order in any case where it is satisfied that, were it to make such an order—

(a)the respondent or any other person would suffer interference with, or disturbance of, his use or enjoyment of the servient land, or

(b)the respondent, or any other person (whether of full age or capacity or not) in occupation of the whole or any part of the servient land, would suffer hardship,

to such a degree by reason of the entry (notwithstanding any requirement of this Act or any term or condition that may be imposed under it) that it would be unreasonable to make the order."

Thanks for that OSL, that's the one I've been looking for.

[openspaceman]

1 hour ago, Gary Prentice said:

 

Thanks for that OSL, that's the one I've been looking for.

 

 

I was replying to Mark B but the same applies to Con.

 

I'll refer you to our previous discussion on this

 

In Con's case , if it is common land, he almost certainly has right of access under the 1925 law of property  act or the later CRoW. Then climbing the tree may be a civil offence but the owner would have little redress.

 

In Mark's case he has no other right of access but showing the resident the act may make him relent. Again if he does not break anything to enter then the trespass is a civil offence but the householder would have the right to use reasonable force to evict the trespasser and if he has read this thread then he wouldn't be amiss in countering the threat with a baseball bat handy.

Edited March 10, 2019 by openspaceman
wrong wording

[Mark Bolam]

?

Bring it!

[Mark Bolam]

Result.

We had strong winds here yesterday and a big pop came down in the village.

Loads more bits of the willow came down on the bowls club as well (small bits).

The club secretary thought it would be a good time to approach the owner, and it was.

He is now totally onside with allowing access.

?

[eggsarascal]

4 minutes ago, Mark Bolam said:

Result.

We had strong winds here yesterday and a big pop came down in the village.

Loads more bits of the willow came down on the bowls club as well (small bits).

The club secretary thought it would be a good time to approach the owner, and it was.

He is now totally onside with allowing access.

?

Tell the truth, you and your sweary mates went round n threatened the old boy, didn't ya.

[Mark Bolam]

?