Dying ash under TPO hanging over property

[daltontrees]

16 hours ago, Botty Cough said:

Dead ,dying or  diesesed is a suitable reason to just get on with removals .

I would just take it out personally as it's only going one way so get it while it's in some sort workable condition...

There is NO dying or diseased exemption. Removing protected trees on that basis would be a strict liability offence.

[john87]

2 hours ago, daltontrees said:

I don't know. But new Regulations were needed anyway. The 1969 Regulations were remade in 1999, then again in 2012. It's like buses, none come for ages then two come along at once. Politicians liek to shift things form primary to secondary legislation so tha the Ministers can mess about with them afterwards without full parliamentary approval.

Ahhhhhh.... It all becomes clear....

 

john..

[whizzkid96]

23 hours ago, john87 said:

 

So, TPO or not, if it is a nuisance or dead, do away with it.

 

john..

The nuisance exemption also only applies to actionable nuisance in the very specific legal sense e.g when trees are touching a building and causing direct damage. 

 

There's no exemption for perceived nuisance, things like blocking light, fallen leaves etc. 

Edited February 25, 2024 by whizzkid96
Clarity

[Chris at eden]

11 minutes ago, whizzkid96 said:

The nuisance exemption also only applies to actionable nuisance in the very specific legal sense e.g when trees are touching a building and causing direct damage. 

 

There's no exemption for perceived nuisance, things like blocking light, fallen leaves etc. 

Have a watch of the webinar that Charles Mynors did on the AA website. Or better still, read his book.  

[john87]

15 minutes ago, whizzkid96 said:

The nuisance exemption also only applies to actionable nuisance in the very specific legal sense e.g when trees are touching a building and causing direct damage. 

 

There's no exemption for perceived nuisance, things like blocking light, fallen leaves etc. 

Not exactly.. True, light does not come into it, neither does leaves, BUT, it the thing invades your property by spreading roots or overhanging you can most certainly do something about it. "Actionable" is meaningless really. If you define it in relation to "the law does not concern itself with trifles" then great, as that is EXACTLY what the rules to do with "self abatement" are concerned with.

 

The right to defend your property in this way has been confirmed by the courts many times.

 

If you think i am wrong, produce evidence.

 

john..

[Chris at eden]

23 hours ago, john87 said:

 

So, TPO or not, if it is a nuisance or dead, do away with it.

 

john..

Dead trees require a 5-day notice or retrospective notice.  Dead branches don’t. 

[Chris at eden]

23 hours ago, john87 said:

Why repeal them then re-make them?

 

Have some of the legal bods in parliament read some of the case law you mentioned in your other thread replies?

Because some of the exemptions changed. The DDD for example. Other bits changed as well.  The provisional protection being automatic, before 2012 you had to serve them with a 201 direction.  The requirement to use the one-app, from 2008 i think.  Some of the very old TPOs didn’t cover uprooting or wilful destruction, prior to 1976 from memory.  The orders became more compact.  Lots of reasons. 
 

The 2012 regs were meant to streamline things and bring all the historic TPOs under the protection of the new regs.  So even TPOs from the 60s prevented uprooting and wilful damage. 
 

Annoyingly, I resurveyed and reserved all of the TPOs older than 76 at the LPA I used to work at in 2010! 

[Botty Cough]

6 hours ago, daltontrees said:

There is NO dying or diseased exemption. Removing protected trees on that basis would be a strict liability offence.

What a load of twoddle. Just wack notice on it due to conditions and take it out.

They very rarely reply let alone within a week 

Edited February 25, 2024 by Botty Cough

[Chris at eden]

1 minute ago, Botty Cough said:

What a load of twoddle. Just wack notice on it due to conditions and take it out.

They very rarely reply let alone within a week 

I think what Jules is saying is that there is no exemption for dying or diseased. Those reasons alone would need an app.  Felling for those reasons would be a criminal offence subject to an unlimited fine.  Dying was an exemption before 2012 but diseased never has been. 
 

The exemptions are now dead trees or those which impose an immediate risk of serious harm. Both require a five day notice. Or removal of deadwood. 
 

They may well not respond to notices as they are not required to, it’s a notice. But if you felled a tree on the basis of it being diseased they could prosecute you and there wouldn’t be much you could do about it unless you could otherwise show it was exempt. 
 

For the record I would ideally want a response from the TO before I went ahead anyway. 

 

[whizzkid96]

17 minutes ago, john87 said:

Not exactly.. True, light does not come into it, neither does leaves, BUT, it the thing invades your property by spreading roots or overhanging you can most certainly do something about it. "Actionable" is meaningless really. If you define it in relation to "the law does not concern itself with trifles" then great, as that is EXACTLY what the rules to do with "self abatement" are concerned with.

 

The right to defend your property in this way has been confirmed by the courts many times.

 

If you think i am wrong, produce evidence.

 

john..

 

Discussion on this thread. 

 

The common law right to prune to the boundary is still subject to TPO legislation.