Neighbouring Trees and TPOs

[Khriss]

1 hour ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

It’s what we’re all waiting for 😂

... Yup  😕 K

[Con]

1 hour ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

It’s a re-run! All been done before 😂

Think you might've done enough to re ignite ir!

[daltontrees]

17 hours ago, Treerover said:

Absolutely not . The tree is protected in its entirety from root to shoot tip and any disturbance or wilful damage or unlawful pruning is criminal damage and punishable by law .
I’d suggest Googling the caveats and wherewithal’s of TPO’s and it’s impacts on the breacher of said order .

Sorry but that's not true. The tree is protected but if it is causing or will imminently cause a legal nuisance then the encroached landowner or the tree owner can remove, reduce or prevent the nuisance. The law on this is crystal clear in statute. Pick your country and I will give you the Act and section or Regulation.

[daltontrees]

[devon TWiG]

6 hours ago, daltontrees said:

Sorry but that's not true. The tree is protected but if it is causing or will imminently cause a legal nuisance then the encroached landowner or the tree owner can remove, reduce or prevent the nuisance. The law on this is crystal clear in statute. Pick your country and I will give you the Act and section or Regulation.

surely you can't just go ahead and do the work though ?  would an application be required and justification for work ( unless immediate danger ) ..

[daltontrees]

42 minutes ago, devon TWiG said:

surely you can't just go ahead and do the work though ?  would an application be required and justification for work ( unless immediate danger ) ..

You can but you need to (a) be sure that there is or imminently will be a legal nuisance and (b) take photos etc. to justify it after the event and (c) only do enough to deal with the nuisance. Don't get carried away, it's not a license to destroy.

 

Oddly enough, in Englandshire anyway, there is a requirement to notify the Council when exercising the dead or risky tree exemptions, but not for the nuisance exemption.

[Treerover]

Sorry but that's not true. The tree is protected but if it is causing or will imminently cause a legal nuisance then the encroached landowner or the tree owner can remove, reduce or prevent the nuisance. The law on this is crystal clear in statute. Pick your country and I will give you the Act and section or Regulation.

I think we have to look at the original post and it’s simplistic nature of the questioning before we push our spectacles up our nose and look for oblique case studies .
The wording of the original enquiry is such that the assumption of the TPO applies to a property and not the tree.
And please I mean this with the greatest of respect as I know this is your field of some considerable expertise.
I just think in this instance we need to read the OP’s post and how he is driving his enquiry .
No mention made of nuisance etc

[devon TWiG]

so what exactly would a nuisance be to permit works to a TPO tree without application ?   some owners may interpret this as " right to light " for example but i doubt that it gives any one right to carry out works  without approval ... 

[TreeSquirrel]

16 hours ago, daltontrees said:

You can but you need to (a) be sure that there is or imminently will be a legal nuisance and (b) take photos etc. to justify it after the event and (c) only do enough to deal with the nuisance. Don't get carried away, it's not a license to destroy.

 

Oddly enough, in Englandshire anyway, there is a requirement to notify the Council when exercising the dead or risky tree exemptions, but not for the nuisance exemption.

Hi Can you tell me how to deal with our neighbours tree!? It has already knocked our wall down and we have been advised by a tree expert that even if we build a reinforced concrete wall it will knock that one down too as it is going to double in size over the next 30 years currently the main stem is about 40in diameter and part of it is already in direct physical contact with the wall and has knocked the bottom of the wall! The main stem is 15 cm from the wall! How easy is it to get a tree removed that has already caused damage and will do again ? How long does it take and cost can the neighbours stop it from happening ? Currently we started a party wall process not realising that the surveyor could not do anything about the tree!

[daltontrees]

17 hours ago, Treerover said:

I think we have to look at the original post and it’s simplistic nature of the questioning before we push our spectacles up our nose and look for oblique case studies .
The wording of the original enquiry is such that the assumption of the TPO applies to a property and not the tree.
And please I mean this with the greatest of respect as I know this is your field of some considerable expertise.
I just think in this instance we need to read the OP’s post and how he is driving his enquiry .
No mention made of nuisance etc

Fine, but personally I would like if the industry understood the principles behind these things. The OP might have wanted a yes or a no but he world rarely works thats way. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed him forever.

OP asked if he could prune back to boundary. That's a quite extreme. You said absolutely not. That 's quite extreme too. Technically therefore me saying it isn't true is correct. The in-between scenario is that pruning can take place without TPO approval in specific circumstances.

The TPO relates to the tree, and it it's a group/area/woodland of trees it relates to all trees originating within that area. But it is a fundamentally important principle that statute should not stop anyone doing what he is obliged to do at common law, or under any other law for that matter. That is the basis of many of the exemptions. One can even see that when risk of damage is foreseeable but not imminent and a Council refuses permission for works to prevent damage, the obligation for compensation passes to it because it is preventing the tree owner from doing what he should and would, but for the TPO. That is only fair.

All this points to an important distinction. The TPO is over the trees, not the land, but restrains the owner of the land on which the tree originates. When the tree overhangs or sends roots into adjacent property, the tree owner is in 'tort' (or delict in Scotland) and he is not restrained from acting to remove the tort. Neither is the encroached party, he too must suffer the tree overhanging or growing under his property but only to the ponit where it is or is about to become a 'nuisance'. This usually involves damage but does not have to (see Williams and Waistell v Network Rail case a few years ago).

It is not, therefore  a clear cut case of whether it is the tree or the property that the TPO affects. It is the tree up to the point where the owner of the tree is obliged or entitled by statute or common law to do something about the tree.