Big oak. Responsibility.

[wildwood-dwt]

Right, cheers guys, just needed to bounce it off people in the know.

 

They havent been asked if its ok at all. Mum shouted over at them to see whats going on. My folks own everything that side of the river. Theres no seperate ownership of fishing rights or anything like that.

The guy mum spoke to said they were just going ahead with the work without asking for any permission. They didnt think they needed to.

 

Told my folks to check with the council for any TPO`s monday and generally check everything else out. I`d be very suprised if there is`nt a restriction.

 

The thing that concerns my parents is if its all legit and the council have been convinced of a need for cutting back and given the go ahead for this Natural enterprise who are a `ltd` company, that any objections will result in the work being done regardless and them billed for it.

Although, when enforcement type work is carried out the owners are warned in advance, so i dont think there is a worry on that score.

 

I think, the council can evoke there powers and charge your parents for not maintaining trees if the trees in question are lower then 2.5m over the footpath or unsafe. However they do have to give your folks the opportunity to rectify the problem themselves whether that be doing the work themselves or paying a contractor. They would need to give your parents sufficient notice that the work needed to be done and then another notice (if the works had not been carried out) the the council were going to do the works.

It sounds to me that your parents are in the right and anything on there land shouldn't be touched unless it is unsafe or overhanging 2.5m over the footpath (which as above the council would have to notify your parents about). But then again I don't know all the ins and out, talk to the local tree officer I'm sure they will be able to fill you in. If you are really worried about the tree then request a TPO, But if you do there can be consequences which may disadvantage you.

 

Hope this helped

[skyhuck]

I know your a stubborn old mule huck but this viewpoint is nieve:001_rolleyes:

 

Please feel free to point out the flaw in my argument

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Please feel free to point out the flaw in my argument

 

I have before,

[skyhuck]

I have before,

 

That was about "health" not safety.

 

Yes removing one side of a tree may lead to a tree becoming unhealthy and then unsafe, but just the act of physically removing one side of a tree does not (IMHO) make the tree any less safe. The root system has to be strong enough to take the power of the wind pushing the whole tree, not just support a static well balanced tree.

 

IMO people do not have the right to impose half their tree on their neighbor by planting trees on the boundary.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

That was about "health" not safety.

 

Yes removing one side of a tree may lead to a tree becoming unhealthy and then unsafe, but just the act of physically removing one side of a tree does not (IMHO) make the tree any less safe. The root system has to be strong enough to take the power of the wind pushing the whole tree, not just support a static well balanced tree.

 

IMO people do not have the right to impose half their tree on their neighbor by planting trees on the boundary.

 

first point- all trees have compression and tension sides, this is an important consideration when reducing only one half of a tree, basic tree mechanics.

 

force compression upon tension roots, and vice versa at your peril.

 

last point, I would hardly call a beautiful oak alongside a stream as imposing on thy neighbour, and anyone is welcome to impose such a thing on my property.

[skyhuck]

last point, I would hardly call a beautiful oak alongside a stream as imposing on thy neighbour, and anyone is welcome to impose such a thing on my property.

 

I was not talking about this specific case, but shared boundary trees in general

[combined tree services]

never the less huck , it thi day in age it is expected that a tre surgeon should have enough knowlege that causing an imballence by removing half of the trees crown is not acceptable and that you are leaving a potential risk , this has been proven several times over in several courts throughout the country , this is simple law and is taught to ten week students at merrist wood and was explained in depth by Jack Kenyon when i was there in 2003/2004 . gone are the days of carrying out such works that end in the failure of a tree and nothing happening to the tree surgeon .

[skyhuck]

never the less huck , it thi day in age it is expected that a tre surgeon should have enough knowlege that causing an imballence by removing half of the trees crown is not acceptable and that you are leaving a potential risk , this has been proven several times over in several courts throughout the country , this is simple law and is taught to ten week students at merrist wood and was explained in depth by Jack Kenyon when i was there in 2003/2004 . gone are the days of carrying out such works that end in the failure of a tree and nothing happening to the tree surgeon .

 

Please give examples

[Mesterh]

never the less huck , it thi day in age it is expected that a tre surgeon should have enough knowlege that causing an imballence by removing half of the trees crown is not acceptable and that you are leaving a potential risk , this has been proven several times over in several courts throughout the country , this is simple law and is taught to ten week students at merrist wood and was explained in depth by Jack Kenyon when i was there in 2003/2004 . gone are the days of carrying out such works that end in the failure of a tree and nothing happening to the tree surgeon .

 

That is something that I believe shouldnt happen.

 

Otherwise I/we could be potentially blamed for the failure of numerous trees in the future.

 

Are there any cases of the above? ie tree surgeons being blamed for the failure of trees due to previous work?

[combined tree services]

Tree law

As an arborist it is important to be aware of the legal constraints or precedents set within the legal system with regard to trees. Clients in turn can be made aware of them and can then take appropriate action.

 

 

There is no statutory definition of a tree, the best a High Court could come up with was:

A tree is anything that one ordinarily would call a tree.

 

Common Law

- this is made by decisions in court called judgements. These judgements set precedents.

Trees can often be a cause of dispute, common issues include:

Trees & boundaries, light, overhanging branches, poisonous trees, views, nuisance, negligence.

Focus is directed onto WHO HAS RESPONSIBILITY OR DUTY to look after the land / tree.

 

Tree Ownership

Trees grow wherever the conditions permit, they have no comprehension of boundaries.

Boundaries are not always clearly defined. A fence, hedge or wall does not always delineate a true boundary.

English Law recognises that there are many types of land ownership:

Freeholders, tenants, lease’s, covenants, custodians, highways, crown, Forestry Commission, Parochial Church Council, Local Authorities, County Councils etc

The basic principle is :Any plant, regardless of type, is part of the land in which it stands, whether deliberately planted or self-seeded. The plant belongs to the owner of the soil surrounding the base of the stem.

 

Trees and boundaries

 

 

 

A has no responsibility to prevent branches growing into B’s land.

A has no obligation to clear leaves that fall onto B’s land.

B can prune branches back to the boundary. (as long as it is done from B’s land)

B does not have to give prior notice. (would be polite and neighbourly to do so though)

A or B may not enter each others land without consent.

If B were to prune the tree in such a way that the tree became unstable, B could be liable in the event of the tree falling and causing injury or damage.

Debris & arisings from the tree belongs to A. (and should be offered back)

 

Fruit trees:

A owns all the fruit in the tree and on the ground on their land and B’s land.

A has no obligation to remove the fallen fruit from B’s land.

A cannot enter B’s land to collect the fruit without B’s consent.

B will be committing theft if they take A’s fruit without consent.

If B placed a greenhouse under the falling fruit of A’s tree then its B’s own problem.

 

Tree roots:

Tree roots do not respect boundaries.

Roots crossing boundaries may be cut back.

The tree owner may have a claim against the neighbour if the tree dies or falls as a result of cutting.

This is the most simplistic explanation of common law rights, complications arise when tree roots and branches cross boundaries and cause damage, wether direct or indirect, or when trees fail and cause damage.

 

In common law, direct or indirect damage caused by a tree could be known as an actionable nuisance which would come under ‘The Law of Tort’

ie: A civil wrong or injury arising out of an act or failure to act, independently of any contract, for which an action for damages may be brought.

 

The essential factor in determining liability for nuisance is -

wether the damage is of such a kind as a reasonable person should have foreseen it.

 

The most important piece of legislation a tree owner should be aware of is -

‘The Owners & Occupiers Liability Act 1957 & 1984’ this concerns a tree owners ‘Duty of Care’.

The person responsible for any tree has a duty, known in law as ‘duty of care’ to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which they can reasonably foresee would be likely to cause harm

 

The duty is owed to occupiers, visitors and (as amended in 1984) trespassers of:

-Neighbouring land

-Those using ‘highway’ land

-Land under contract

-Property

 

Whilst trees are not in themselves dangerous things, their owner has a duty to others to ensure that they are not endangered by his / her negligence.

Negligence may be described as omitting to do what a prudent or reasonable person would do, or doing what a prudent or reasonable person would not do.

 

Where one fails to take any necessary action or undertake any action, resulting in harm to people, animals or property, and if that harm is foreseeable then you may be found negligent.

 

Negligence may include:

- Failing to have trees inspected on a regular basis.

- Omitting to remedy a problem that has been draw to ones attention.

- Failing to identify a foreseeable problem during an inspection.

- Undertaking incompetent pruning.

- Destabilising a tree by root severance.

 

A tree owner is not expected to have the knowledge of a qualified arboriculturist, but is expected to appoint a competent person to act on their behalf.

 

One would not be found negligent in the event of an ‘Act of God’:

- Failure of a tree after being subject to a ‘reasonably careful inspection’ and appropriate action had been taken

- Failure of a tree as a result of a disease or weakness that would not have been visible on a proper examination

- Failure of a tree as a result of exceptionally severe weather

 

Statute Law – law of the sovereign power & made by acts of parliament

Statute Law Legislation includes:

 

The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – Tree preservation orders. Trees in conservation areas

Forestry Act 1967 – Felling licences

Highways Act 1980 – Trees and highways

Plant Health Act 1967 – Import & export of plant material

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 – Protection of wild animals

Countryside Rights of Way Act 2000 – Greater protection of SSSI’S & AONB’s

Hedgerow regulations 1997 – Protection of hedgerows

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986

Owners & occupiers liability Act 1957 & 1984 – Duty of Care

Neighbouring Land Act 1992 – Court orders for rights to access when dealing with dangerous trees

Miscellaneous provisions Act – The Local Authority’s power to deal with dangerous trees on private Land