Law on overhanging trees?

[Rupe]

yeah no worries rupe, i'll make sure all is done to the correct points. I think it may be the case that i can just take a few limbs off to the main side limb without the tree looking silly or out of balance. It realy isn't very much that has to come off.

 

Yes, it wasn't a critisism of what your doing, just a point that the "back to the boundary" rule is pointless unless its the homeowner cuttign stuff back.

 

As proffessionals we should be engaging both parties and finding the correct solution for all including the tree.

 

If I get asked to cut back to boundaries because its a law that it can be done, I usually tell them that the law is for them to cut the trees back, if they want me to do it it will be done my way regardless of the law, i,e. with planning permsision (if required) with tree/land owners consent and correctly for the species of tree.

[Arbgirl]

Miscellaneous Provisions Act ( 1986 I think)

 

Thats the one - I knew it has something to do with shopping!

 

Doesnt apply here

 

I think the best option is to try reasoning with the tree owner to allow access and try to keep neighbourly relations as smooth as possible

 

Why did the TO say to fell it? Is it likely to become a future hazard? Suggests to me the TPO should be revoked if it isnt a hazard, just a poor choice for a TPO tree?

[common lime]

If the tree is dead, dying or dangerous there is no need to revoke the TPO. The TO could give consent to fell and replace the tree via an application or advise the owner or agent that it is within the statutory exemption in S198 SS 6a of the Town and Country Planning Act.

[plippy]

im sure that if any work carried out affects the stability of the tree or proves detrimental the client/arborist are liable

[treequip]

im sure that if any work carried out affects the stability of the tree or proves detrimental the client/arborist are liable

 

They would need to prove that any problems with the tree were a direct result on the works and that the right of the branch to occupy the space had a better claim than the common law right of the cutter to abate the nuisance.

 

In short you are responsible for your actions, it's hardly likely to cause a problem removing branches but cutting roots could be an entirely different situation.

[felixthelogchopper]

With regards to the falling deadwood question, the neighbour owes a duty of care to your client and has to take all reasonable steps to avoid the damage, ie the deadwood falling on your client's land. This could vary regarding on the circumstances and if the damage is extremely unlikely, ie has rarely happened, and precautions of a reasonable nature had been taken then the court would most likely apply Bolton v Stone and find no negligence. If, however, the occurence is more regular and no precautions have been taken to mitigate the risk then liability would be more likely to be applied, as per Miller v Jackson. The courts would also look at things such as the likely targets as to how reasonable any risk was but it would be necessary to show actual damage beyond nuisance to claim in negligence.

[stetson]

I think that there is a law that lets you (or I think it might be the council) force access to the land to carry out tree works (and bill the tree owner for it) but I am sure it is only for cases of hazardous trees and in certain circumstances

 

Will dig out my notes and see what I can find

 

I take it the work is not to be carried out in a conservation area? Or on a TPO'd tree?

i think its the miscellaneous previsions act 1974,allows you to enter land to attend to a dangerous tree without the owners consent if the tree is likely to be a problem. cant remember the exact wording.

[treequip]

i think its the miscellaneous previsions act 1974,allows you to enter land to attend to a dangerous tree without the owners consent if the tree is likely to be a problem. cant remember the exact wording.

 

Only if the “YOU” is a local authority or their appointed agent.

 

Misc prov powers are granted to LA’s and extend to anything that is an imminent hazard so it needs to be a bit more than likely to be a problem.

[Shane]

Legal wizz kids... please..

It has already been stated that the arisings MUST be offered to the tree owner. Fair enough it is the rightful property of the tree owner BUT if the owner declines your kind offer can you insist he takes it or must you dispose of it yourself. With some overhangs (especially long hedges of leylandii) this can be a costly part of the process.

Edited June 6, 2010 by Amelanchier
Language. If others hadn't replied I would have binned it - I will next time for sure.

[Big 'Ammer]

Legal wizz kids... please..

It has already been stated that the arisings MUST be offered to the tree owner. Fair enough it is the rightful property of the tree owner BUT if the owner (who at this stage is already an awkward ####) declines your kind offer can you insist he takes it or must you dispose of it yourself. With some overhangs (especially long hedges of leylandii) this can be a costly part of the process to which the owner has contibuted bu##er all already.

 

We always give it back if the owner is awkward

 

It doesn't say in Law what size it has to given back in ......

 

Just point that chipper spout over the boundary, jobs a good 'un!

Edited June 6, 2010 by Amelanchier