Appeal against refusal to fell - direct contact structural damage

[Khriss]

Man in a Van, knock wall down dark sat day night. Airspade root flair n terram  parking area. Say some bloke in a dodgy hat did it..... k

Edited June 20, 2019 by Khriss
( this may not be helpful but I do like Elms. ..)

[Gary Prentice]

2 minutes ago, Khriss said:

Man in a Van, knock wall down dark sat day night. Airspade root flair n terram  parking area. Say some bloke in a dodgy hat did it and ran away..... k

Fixed that for ya 

[Khriss]

17 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

Fixed that for ya 

It's a defendable position as long as I get pound notes fella ! K

[daltontrees]

54 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

That's the way I think that I'm going, although I've never had to calculate an amenity evaluation before. Best one to use?

Piee of piss to calculate. LA will want CAVAT because it produces ridiculously high values. But remember, LA doesn't own the tree. See recent debate on UKTC on the raw inequity of using CAVAT to value TPO trees. You could try Helliwell, though it's pants too. I can run you through a CTLA 9th edition if yo want, ask me offline. I amn't putting my Excel CTLA and CAVAT calculators online.

[Gary Prentice]

1 minute ago, daltontrees said:

Piee of piss to calculate. LA will want CAVAT because it produces ridiculously high values. But remember, LA doesn't own the tree. See recent debate on UKTC on the raw inequity of using CAVAT to value TPO trees. You could try Helliwell, though it's pants too. I can run you through a CTLA 9th edition if yo want, ask me offline. I amn't putting my Excel CTLA and CAVAT calculators online.

I remember the CAVAT topic. The LA had an i-tree valuation done a year or to back, but I don't think they had the software itself to do the calculations. It would be fun, otherwise, to ask one of the other TOs to run the data to get an i-tree value.

I'll email you. 

Thanks Jules.

[daltontrees]

58 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

I'm a bit fixated on those words 'reasonably foresee'.

 

In the original app I said that the wall, and pillar showed signs of historic damage, and repair, and were now cracked and leaning again - apparently due, in part, to the lateral root in the photo. I acknowledged the usual requirement to seek an engineering solution but said that this would require remediation of the third parties wall as well. (Leaving it unsaid that this would be a complication- I just raised that point) I'd hope that all of that would be adequate to make everything reasonably foreseeable?

You don't have to prove foreseeability, just raise the possibility (in other words, foresee it) with whatever evidence you have at the time. You may already have done enough in that regard.

 

The damage doesn't just need to be to the owner's property, it could be to neighbouring property. But there's a horrible creaking door there, the legislation says compensation ignores what an owner shoudl have done to minimise the damage, and if the remedy of abatement is (as I am convinced it is) available then it should be exercised rather than relying on compensation for offsite damage. I hope that makes sense.

[daltontrees]

1 hour ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

It was part of his seminar at Barchams (I think it was 2015) Generally, the discussion was circling around his view that the construct, interpretation, administration, deliverables and consequences of the current TPO system being clumsy, administratively burdensome and not particularly effective/ efficient. 

 

His declaration that abatement of actionable nuisance would (provided it actually was) require no consent from LA. 

 

There was a palpable collective gasp of horror from the +/- 80% LA TO audience.  

 

 

 

Good, well it's about time the LAs read the legislation for what is says.

 

In fact, it gives an exception for prevention or abatement. To me as an english speaker it's plain tha the exception is there to allow someone to intervene before nuisance occurs. All arguments then about how bad the nuisance needs to be (actionable/self-abatable etc.) are nonsense. If you are allowed to prevent it, why woudl there be a gap between that and the dmage becoming so bad that you're being taken to court by a neighbour because of it.

 

I am prepared to be quoted on it. The nuisance doesn't have to be actionable. It doesn't even need to exist. It just needs to be imminent and reasonably foreseeable and the remedy just needs to be enough to prevent or remove it.

[daltontrees]

17 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

I remember the CAVAT topic. The LA had an i-tree valuation done a year or to back, but I don't think they had the software itself to do the calculations. It would be fun, otherwise, to ask one of the other TOs to run the data to get an i-tree value.

I'll email you. 

Thanks Jules.

I beleive the iTree software is based on CTLA. I have set my spreadsheet to deal with the hideous quadratic equation in the Trunk Formula Method, so it's all done automatically. You can have a play with it.

[daltontrees]

1 hour ago, Gary Prentice said:

I'm not sure that I'd want to be the test case for that locally. I'm fairly confident that the head TO would be delighted to take me to court just to clarify the position. 

 

Still, I'd have plenty of company in the dock, me the agent, the contractor, the tree owner and the wall owner! I wonder how much liability I'd actually have as the agent, if I told everyone to cart on? Not my tree to allow it to be done, not actually doing it... I suppose that anyone prosecuted for contravention could pursue me... 

I'll join you in the dock. You'd win. Tell the head TO to come ahead if he thinks he's hard enough. Tell him to bring a dictionary and a text book on elementary english. And his mammy too.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

2 hours ago, Khriss said:

Man in a Van, knock wall down dark sat day night. Airspade root flair n terram  parking area. Say some bloke in a dodgy hat did it and ran away to Cornwall .... k

 

2 hours ago, Gary Prentice said:

Fixed that for ya 

Fixed that fix for ya ?