can they stop me?

[openspaceman]

5 hours ago, Mick Dempsey said:

 

But you would dictate the scope of the work entirely?

Ideally the TO should allow the adjacent landowner to remove the trespassing limbs as his right and then mitigate the   outcome by reducing cut limbs outwith the property, if that is inappropriate the tree should be removed.

[jose]

On 25/11/2020 at 16:11, Nimby said:

Honestly, I despise threads like this.

 

As a TO I would meet the property owner and advise that we, the Council, will carry out works by reducing the encroachment as much as is deemed suitable (for the tree and the resident).

 

Looking at the photo, I could advise that this is priority work and get it done asap depending on if there's any other works in that area needs doing as well.

   

If only it were that straight forward.

I encounter households day in day out that are crying out for 5 minutes to talk to the TO but they refuse to do so. Will not meet anyone and come and go seemingly in the night to asses the trees.

Yes i think the council should have addressed this tree many years ago. It is their tree as they so clearly pointed out so they should remedy it!

But around here unless you scream for blood so to speak the council is deaf to all. it seems to react as opposed to being proactive. 

Personally i do do work for the council , am on they local buy with confidence scheme with the local council but i dont think the people making the decisions even know this.

As said i dont mind as i dont live there but i do feel for the people that do.

All i can say is id wish we had more approachable TO 's like you Nimby.

 

[Nimby]

On 25/11/2020 at 17:22, Mick Dempsey said:

 

But you would dictate the scope of the work entirely?

Not necessarily, just discuss it together. I am willing to compromise in most situations. With this I would say let's get an initial amount of work done and have a look from there.  

[openspaceman]

1 hour ago, jose said:

But around here unless you scream for blood so to speak the council is deaf to all. it seems to react as opposed to being proactive. 

This is where getting the interest of an elected councillor may be worth pursuing.

[daltontrees]

1 hour ago, Nimby said:

Not necessarily, just discuss it together. I am willing to compromise in most situations. With this I would say let's get an initial amount of work done and have a look from there.  

For a TO your attitude is refreshing, but they all seem skint and stretched to the point of it being impossible for them to do things or get things done properly.

 

The issue in this post is that the Council is withholding access as a means of trying to get the affected owner to do less work than they are legally entitled to do. That's a really shit stance. Had that council the resources, it could discuss and agree a slightly reduced spec in return for getting to do the work in a way that won't destroy the tree.

 

The difference is probably the cost of a tree squad for a day. Our local Council tree team would be bankrupt if it had to do that even once  a month. The typical compromise is 'yes our tree is encroaching but we haven't the resources to cut it back for you but you can do it at your own expense, please try and do it nicely.' To be honest that's not that atypical between adjacent private landowners anyway.

[daltontrees]

Just to add, the absence of any contradiction to my diatribe about the rights of encroached owners to cut back to the boundary almost regardless of the consequences for the tree isn't proof that I'm right but there's no argument that the tree owner has any right to keep any part of its tree in or over a neighbour's property so I would have no fear in recommending to a client or a customer that they can cut back to the boundary. Tree owners threatening legal action for damage to the tree can go and do one, as the polite version of the crude sentiment puts it.  

[Khriss]

29 minutes ago, openspaceman said:

This is where getting the interest of an elected councillor may be worth pursuing.

... Ill get me brown envelope... K

 

( this has got to be the most talked about tree in the  UK  ? ) 

[Khriss]

@daltontrees  dickensian TO's . I get well annoyed on the '  can you do those trees as they overhanging yr Railway an our lads aint got those tickets and we have no money'  TO pleading.  Really works my biscuit it does. Humbug! K

 

 

( Bless ye one and all) 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

16 minutes ago, Khriss said:

@daltontrees  dickensian TO's . I get well annoyed on the '  can you do those trees as they overhanging yr Railway an our lads aint got those tickets and we have no money'  TO pleading.  Really works my biscuit it does. Humbug! K

 

 

( Bless ye one and all) 

No money for ‘output’ but 6 figure salaried LA CEOs aplenty....

 

Yeah, tell me again why ‘there’s no money?’

[Mick Dempsey]

3 hours ago, Nimby said:

Not necessarily, just discuss it together. I am willing to compromise in most situations. With this I would say let's get an initial amount of work done and have a look from there.  

To me that’s ridiculous, either do it to the boundary or don’t, saying ‘let’s do a bit and have a look from there’ is doubling the work, both for the tree crews and the homeowner who will inevitably be unsatisfied with the lesser option and will have to wait months/years, plus jump through more hoops to get what they want.

Edited November 27, 2020 by Mick Dempsey