Aphid honeydew nuisance

[Willowboy]

Thanks all for your input on this pressing matter.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

On 22/01/2021 at 12:13, rosscoyorks said:

Mynors 5.6.3 page 135
R v Test Valley BC

It's interesting that Dr Mynors states that in the absence of a Wednesbury challenge to procedural process:

 

(a)  ...this (R v Test Valley BC, EX p Anne) is the only case that may be referenced, and that,

(b)  ...the reasoning of the judgement is succinct, and it is not possible readily to discern the principles on which its conclusions were reached, so as to predict what might be the outcome of future challenges.

 

So here in lies a potential caution against what might be considered the 'habit' of citing a single example and applying it, carte blanche, across a broader range of possible circumstances than might reasonably apply.  (I can think of several perennial examples)

 

For starters, the only (partially relevant) case reference is some 20 years old (not a long time in legal nor tree years but a long time in human habit, interpretation and willingness to accept authority perhaps!)

 

So it got me to thinking, that case was a tree owner notifying intention in a CA, the LA objecting and implementing a TPO, the tree owner seeking consent to fell a TPO tree, the LA objecting, the tree owner seeking assistance from the LA by means of a statutory nuisance and the LA refusing to assist.

 

There is a lot of your own homework being marked in that passage of events.

 

Would it wash today?

 

It's not uncommon to see a LA stating that they will "defend at all costs" (example below) which resulted in pretty robust lambasting from the beak, and I'm thinking of a local planning app which has been called to JR next month where the LA haven't quite said "defend at all costs" but they have said "robustly defend their decision."

 

I can't help but think - shouldn't the default starting position of a local government body - who's purpose is to serve the people - be something more like "...oh, we'd better have another look at that and see if there is a mutually satisfactory way to approach it..." rather than "...defend at all costs...?" 

 

Not suggesting that the OPs circumstance warrants anything more than the attention it's already had - all sounds relatively minor - just saying, it might not be wise to bet all your chips on defending all future claims for abatement from insects / spores on what appears to be a fairly sketchy precedent especially where attitudes towards the importance of 'authority' seem to be on an ever decreasing scale.  

 

Just thinking out loud really....

 

 

 

 

Information request - a Freedom of Information request to Test Valley Borough Council - WhatDoTheyKnow

WWW.WHATDOTHEYKNOW.COM

---

Please provide the information held in relation to the decision making process by the council in R v Test Valley Borough...

 

 

 

 

[Jon Heuch]

On 21/01/2021 at 22:10, Paddy1000111 said:

No idea legally but honeydew doesn't actually cause any damage so I don't see what he can push on that? Bird poo can acid etch paint and spread disease but honeydew is honeydew. Suggest he buys a car cover or a house that doesn't have massive trees outside. You wouldn't buy a house that backs onto a railway track then try to get the trains re-routed. Why buy a house with mature trees that are protected and then ask for them to be chopped 🤦🏼

I believe this is quite a complicated subject; paints on cars changed a number of years ago. Honeydew can lead to problems, even if it is merely having to wash the car. If you have a snazzy car wonderfully polished (I don't; I think I have cleaned my car about once a year) you might have an argument to make, but it would be highly useful if you also were able to identify what reasonable step or steps you wanted the tree owner to take. Tree removal? Probably unreasonable? Tree pruning within reasonable limits? Possibly.

[Paddy1000111]

5 minutes ago, Jon Heuch said:

I believe this is quite a complicated subject; paints on cars changed a number of years ago. Honeydew can lead to problems, even if it is merely having to wash the car. If you have a snazzy car wonderfully polished (I don't; I think I have cleaned my car about once a year) you might have an argument to make, but it would be highly useful if you also were able to identify what reasonable step or steps you wanted the tree owner to take. Tree removal? Probably unreasonable? Tree pruning within reasonable limits? Possibly.

Yes and no, I would argue it's no more damaging than bird poo as that is acidic and can eat paint for breakfast. Especially seagull for some reason. It's an impracticality. I would put it on the same level as acid rain, bird poo, the sun, leaf litter, gritters and the subsequent salt damage to chassis and pepperdashing to bumpers.

It's not the tree that's the issue, it's nature. If the guy was that worried about his car then he needs a car cover or find somewhere else to park it. Those trees and nature were there long before his car was there. Just sounds like someone determined to shape the world to fit them as opposed to accepting it as part of life. 

[Ruskins Trees]

Aphids are farmed by ants, ants protect them from predators.

Reduce the ants climbing the tree by placing sugar at bottom of tree. They are lazy.

Ants will take it from there, not climb the tree to get to the sugary aphid poo.     

Encourage predators of aphids. 

Tell them to get car covers if they cannot park elseswhere.   

Stop calling it Honeydew  and call it Aphid poo,  explain it goes black on cars etc due to fungus (I think).

That should motivate them to move their cars      

[daltontrees]

On 27/01/2021 at 18:16, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

It's interesting that Dr Mynors states that in the absence of a Wednesbury challenge to procedural process:

 

(a)  ...this (R v Test Valley BC, EX p Anne) is the only case that may be referenced, and that,

(b)  ...the reasoning of the judgement is succinct, and it is not possible readily to discern the principles on which its conclusions were reached, so as to predict what might be the outcome of future challenges.

 

So here in lies a potential caution against what might be considered the 'habit' of citing a single example and applying it, carte blanche, across a broader range of possible circumstances than might reasonably apply.  (I can think of several perennial examples)

 

For starters, the only (partially relevant) case reference is some 20 years old (not a long time in legal nor tree years but a long time in human habit, interpretation and willingness to accept authority perhaps!)

 

So it got me to thinking, that case was a tree owner notifying intention in a CA, the LA objecting and implementing a TPO, the tree owner seeking consent to fell a TPO tree, the LA objecting, the tree owner seeking assistance from the LA by means of a statutory nuisance and the LA refusing to assist.

 

There is a lot of your own homework being marked in that passage of events.

 

From what I can gather of this case,  it was a judicial review or challenge of the Council's decision that the honeydew was not a statutory nuisance. More specifically, the nuisance claimed was that the honeydew and resulting sooty mould was prejudicial to the health of the occupants of the thatched cottage (the thatch supposedly harbouring the sooty mould spores that caused respiratory problems).

I agree people seize too readily on cases as proving generalities, whereas it is the other way around, the law looks to apply generalities to specific situations and if we are lucky clarifies the generalities of the law.

And so some of the useful principles of tree-related law come from places like Donoghue v Stevenson (about ginger beer) and Rylands v Fletcher (flooded mines).

All that the Test Valley case did was clarify that a statutory nuisance based on 'prejudicial to health' has to be prejudicial to the average person. This is consistent with the principle that actions and inactions towards others expect us only to anticipate normal situations.

Statutory nuisance has specific classes, and none of them involve dirtying cars with sooty moulds. There seems to be no prospect of a case succeeding based on sooty moulds causing inconvenience or damage.

There was a case in 1985 (Wivenhoe Port), concerned with statutory nuisance interference with personal comfort, where the judge stated that "dust falling on motor cars may cause inconvenience to their owners; it may even diminish the value of their motor car, but this would not be a statutory nuisance."

Common law nuisance, now that's a slightly different matter, bound only by broad principles of deprivaion of right to enjoy property.

 

Edited February 21, 2021 by daltontrees