can they stop me?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Come on you idle slackers!

 

Where’s your sense of adventure, your indomitable spirit, your rebellious indignation?

 

The ‘scenario’ - keep the tree v prune the tree v fell the tree - you’re getting bogged down in supplementary questions and ignoring the glaringly obvious.....

 

There is NO SUCH THING AS COUNCIL OWNED LAND!

 

(yes I am looking at you K ???)

 

 

Edited November 1, 2020 by kevinjohnsonmbe

[openspaceman]

1 hour ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

There is NO SUCH THING AS COUNCIL OWNED LAND!

What do you mean by that? because a council is an entity that can own land, whether you are implying that councils hold land for the benefit of the public that's different, and probably wrong.

[Khriss]

1 hour ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Come on you idle slackers!

 

Where’s your sense of adventure, your indomitable spirit, your rebellious indignation?

 

The ‘scenario’ - keep the tree v prune the tree v fell the tree - you’re getting bogged down in supplementary questions and ignoring the glaringly obvious.....

 

There is NO SUCH THING AS COUNCIL OWNED LAND!

 

(yes I am looking at you K ???)

 

 

Wrapped up warm in my halloween cloak an hood with nails n lump hammer in my satchel as we speak. K

[daltontrees]

That is a shocking encroachment. I can't imagine many people tolerating it.

 

I would suggest that you advise the customer to have the tree reduced on their side without involving the Council, but not right back to the boundary. I would suggest the amount of reduction be determined by 4 things

1. not enough reduction to kill the tree

2. not enough to destabilise the tree

3. not enough to significantly diminish the contribution the tree makes to public amenity

4. enough to satisfy the customer's wish for light and prospect

Let the customer decide how much reduction. Then price it. If you get the job, advise the customer take the hit on not offering the brash to the Council. It's wrong, but there will be no hit.

Negotiating access will only benefit by the price difference between easy access and tricky access. It will benefit the Council only by avoiding a TPO to protect public amenity. Hence test 3 and to a lesser extent test 1 and 2.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

3 hours ago, openspaceman said:

What do you mean by that? because a council is an entity that can own land, whether you are implying that councils hold land for the benefit of the public that's different, and probably wrong.

Yes, I know....

 

I was being obscure...

 

If there is no such thing as 'public money' there can be no such thing as 'publicly owned property' - well, obviously, technically, there can be.  But only for as long as 'we - the masses' remain compliant with the 'rules' that suppress us.  Suppress / protect is open to personal interpretation obviously...

 

For as long as people seek permission / consent there will always be those that (sometimes inappropriately or excessively) attempt to exert their dominant influence.

 

The solution here is to use the selective liberal permissiveness that pervades most public sector organisations to one's advantage.

 

Park a caravan in the RPA, tether a pony to the tree, harvest the overhanging branches for the provision of basic human rights such as cooking and hot water.  

 

Result - immediate grant of 14 days 'camping rights', a camp fire and jolly with the boys drinking beer and toasting muffins, tree problem resolved, leave a load of shite for LA to clean up and finally, the cherry on top, the LA gets a good PR story to boost their diversity and inclusivity stats...

 

Everyone's a winner!

 

PS you might be better off following Jules' advice above (correction - it's NOT 'advice' it is the casual contribution to a hypothetical scenario being discussed informally and without liability), but, if, entirely at your own discretion, you follow my suggestion....

 

Make sure the camp fire is adjacent / at the base of the tree.  Then phone LA and tell them THEIR tree is unsafe.

 

Slam dunk in ya face LA!

 

 

Edited November 1, 2020 by kevinjohnsonmbe

[Khriss]

@kevinjohnsonmbe well done - thats made this thread more interesting  K

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

15 minutes ago, Khriss said:

@kevinjohnsonmbe well done - thats made this thread more interesting  K

I aim to bring a workable alternative to conventional wisdom.....  ?

[Khriss]

Just now, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

I aim to bring a workable alternative to conventional wisdom.....  ?

....... dont kick the arse out of it  K

[Paddy1000111]

This oak looks heavily weighted over the clients house from the photos... Can't you cut a good amount off and thin what's left? Leave it a few years and rinse and repeat? 

 

If you take some height off as it looks a lot taller on the right than the left and then remove 3 d's and thin out what's left then you're doing the best of both worlds? Keeps the council happy as you have left a visually balanced tree and you leave the customer with a lot more of an airy tree that not just lets more light in but is less likely to dump a branch in his garden? 

[Paddy1000111]

And using my high level photoshop skill.... Remove the red, thin the yellow?