Neighbour intends to cut tree with TPO?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

On 21/10/2020 at 03:57, daltontrees said:

I am glad that you recognise that there can be nuisance without damage. At least we can discuss this issue now in the current century.

The important thing about the Network Rail judgement is that it's a statement of the law of nuisance, not a statement of the law of nuisance as it related to Knotweed. It was a conscious decision by the MR to make a modern statement that can be applied to and cited in ANY nuisance case. Tree people seem to be guilty of being unable to assimilate non-tree cases into their understanding of the law, whereas the law has no difficulty in applying the generalities of the law to tree cases.

I honestly don't see the problem of interpretation. Light is a natural riught. A neighbour's tree is encroachign and depriving you of that natural right. You can abate (Lemmon v Webb). You can if it is severe enough force the neighbour to abate (Halkerston v Wedderburn). The TPO legislation says not only that you can abate but you can prevent, suggesting a pretty low threshold.

I have advised clients that they can self-abate in TPO and CA situations. That's not risky, that's the professional thing to do because my duty is not to trees but to people and if they have rights they should know it and know that they can assert them. Difficult to defend? I don't think so. Difficult to prosecute, yes.

That is my contender for post of the year (possibly even best post of all time - certainly in this category)

 

The law does not specifically have to relate to a tree / Arb scenario in order to be applied to one.....

 

?

[openspaceman]

13 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

That is my contender for post of the year (possibly even best post of all time - certainly in this category)

 

The law does not specifically have to relate to a tree / Arb scenario in order to be applied to one.....

 

?

I like the idea that a TPO can infringe a persons rights and that they should be able to abate the nuisance but would like to see a bit of case law before I would chop away. In Surrey I used to come across a fair few big oaks many years after they had  been protected and had badly impacted the enjoyment of a garden now they were shading most of it and the LA TO wouldn't countenance removal.

[Jon Heuch]

On 19/10/2020 at 19:29, daltontrees said:

On 21/10/2020 at 03:57, daltontrees said:

The TPO legislation says not only that you can abate but you can prevent, suggesting a pretty low threshold.

 

I think you know the law doesn't say that; it is more nuanced than that and of course the Perrin v Northampton case spent quite a bit of time exploring the word "necessary". If you can't cut a protected tree down without permission because it is damaging a building, I think that suggesting that tree pruning of protected trees can take place because someone thinks they are causing or even may cause a nuisance is sailing close to the wind....well, to continue the nautical analogy you could have the wind taken from your sails, or even capsize if you are not very careful.