can they stop me?

[jose]

Not unless it can fit through a garden gate.

But even then it has to cross council land. 

But thanks for the input.

 

[Derek Eames]

I theory you can cut it back but I think that under law you would not be allowed to cause excessive harm as a result. Suggest that care and moderation is required...

[daltontrees]

3 minutes ago, Derek Eames said:

I theory you can cut it back but I think that under law you would not be allowed to cause excessive harm as a result. Suggest that care and moderation is required...

I have to say I have looked long and hard for years (and I am a total anorak about case law) and I have never been able to find anything that says there is a duty not to cause harm to the tree. Excessive harm is a different concept, it implies, well, excess. I'd be delighted if ANYONE can send me case law from any era or any UK or commonwealth country saying anything other than the basic Lemmon v Webb thing of having unrestricted right to cut back to the boundary (barring TPO's of course, they have the effect of taking away rights). I make one proviso to that, as was quoted in an irish case from 1927 and is quoted by Dr. Mynors in his book on tree law "where there are two ways of abating a nuisance, the less mischevious is to be followed". This is cited in subsequent cases, some of which involve accusations of criminal damage such as knocking down encroaching walls, and where the law suggests that unless there is urgency or simplicity in the self-abatement the proper approach is raising a legal action of nuisance. Even at that, the abater is within rights to weigh up the delay and costs of a legal action in deciding whther to exercise self-abatement.

It's not perfectly simple but it's not as complicated as having to protect the tree that is stealing your light, airspace, soil nutrients etc. Grrrr!

[Khriss]

@daltontrees  and just to be pedantic, trees cannot steal by definition ? K

[Khriss]

( tho i would include leylandii in the pikey category  ?) 

[jose]

So for interest this is the response i got from the council. I personally have decided not to proceed as i felt i was put between a rock and a hard place and tbh i dont need the grief!

cheers

 

You will receive a response from the tree service at a later date but we are short staffed at the moment with a lot of enquiries to reply to.  As a general advisory at this stage please note that The Council would not endorse shearing off to the boundary  or works beyond the property boundary. For the avoidance of any  doubt neither would it permit access temporary or otherwise from its land which includes access for vehicles, machinery or climbing for the purposes of doing so.

 

In carrying out any common law pruning we would expect any professional company advising their client to apply sympathetic arboricultural best practice pruning principles  to any  parts of the tree within the limits of the client’s legal boundary to avoid damage the tree/s or seriously affecting its health, safety and future management by the Council as the tree owners.  To carry any works to the contrary leading such damage would potentially result in  criminal damage to Council property and the risk of legal proceedings.

 

The Council expects any professional company to apply good arboricultural practice, especially to third party trees and operating as such has a  duty in this respect.  Therefore if a client requires anything to the contrary we would hope that this would be declined in the interests of safeguarding it’s professional integrity and reputation as much as the tree’s health and promoting good arboricultural standards.

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

3 hours ago, jose said:

So for interest this is the response i got from the council. I personally have decided not to proceed as i felt i was put between a rock and a hard place and tbh i dont need the grief!

cheers

 

You will receive a response from the tree service at a later date but we are short staffed at the moment with a lot of enquiries to reply to.  As a general advisory at this stage please note that The Council would not endorse shearing off to the boundary  or works beyond the property boundary. For the avoidance of any  doubt neither would it permit access temporary or otherwise from its land which includes access for vehicles, machinery or climbing for the purposes of doing so.

 

In carrying out any common law pruning we would expect any professional company advising their client to apply sympathetic arboricultural best practice pruning principles  to any  parts of the tree within the limits of the client’s legal boundary to avoid damage the tree/s or seriously affecting its health, safety and future management by the Council as the tree owners.  To carry any works to the contrary leading such damage would potentially result in  criminal damage to Council property and the risk of legal proceedings.

 

The Council expects any professional company to apply good arboricultural practice, especially to third party trees and operating as such has a  duty in this respect.  Therefore if a client requires anything to the contrary we would hope that this would be declined in the interests of safeguarding it’s professional integrity and reputation as much as the tree’s health and promoting good arboricultural standards.

 

What a crock!

 

Get the caravan parked up ??

[Khriss]

12 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

What a crock!

 

Get the caravan parked up ??

Behave ! K

[Khriss]

( Bill in the post already , for all this free advice , might add )

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

49 minutes ago, Khriss said:

( Bill in the post already , for all this free advice , might add )

(OP) Return it unpaid!

 

The answer lies unreservedly in the caravan solution!

 

K is a charlatan!