Unauthorized pruning

[Rich2484]

Depends on who the builders were. Building regs are clear on trees and foundations. Had to dig a foundation deeper by .6m before due to a sycamore being 3m away from an extension.

 

I think oaks are the worst as you can only build 3m away from them and no closer.

[Littletree]

This is an interesting debate . What's the position on the atchual climbing the tree if it's in the nabours garden ? I know you can cut off the branches from your side of the fence but what's the situation if you need to climb a tree in the next doors garden to be able to remove the overhanging branches ? is it not trespassing if you enter there property ie the tree ?

 

Littletree

[skyhuck]

This is an interesting debate . What's the position on the atchual climbing the tree if it's in the nabours garden ? I know you can cut off the branches from your side of the fence but what's the situation if you need to climb a tree in the next doors garden to be able to remove the overhanging branches ? is it not trespassing if you enter there property ie the tree ?

 

Littletree

 

Yes it is, on the job I mentioned earlier I climbed the tree from my customers side of the fence (threw a rope) I roped into a limb right on the boundary.

 

But, TBH trespass is a pretty minor offence and if you were doing it to "abate a nuisance" I don't think you would face much in the way of penalty.

[treequip]

Was it 'rightful' or was it excessive ? and I doubt the nuisance issue 'Shade' was resolved , Its a good one to think about.

 

I dont need to think about it, its pretty clear to me.

 

Abatement of nuisance is rightful unless that right is modified by statutory protection.

 

Excessive would mean the excessive part would be not rightful so any action for compensation would need to be restricted to that part, how much amenity does a branch stump posess? Any action would most likely be over a couple of feet of bare branch. De minimis non curat lex

 

Considder this "expert legal team"' how much money do you think they can wring out of a bit of tree work, the cost of running such a "team" is prohibitive, the odds of a successful outcome would barely justify chucking tens of thousands at a huuuuugely risky undertaking. Remember, only lawyers profit from litigation.

[skyhuck]

Was it 'rightful' or was it excessive ? and I doubt the nuisance issue 'Shade' was resolved , Its a good one to think about.

 

The "nuisance" is not "shade", its taking the airspace of another, why should anyone have the right to steal a neighbours airspace???????

 

In this country "shade" is not a legal "nuisance", as far as I'm aware you have little or no right to light, in order for it to qualify as "nuisance" you would need to be in such darkness as to need your lights on all the time.

[treequip]

Yes it is, on the job I mentioned earlier I climbed the tree from my customers side of the fence (threw a rope) I roped into a limb right on the boundary.

 

But, TBH trespass is a pretty minor offence and if you were doing it to "abate a nuisance" I don't think you would face much in the way of penalty.

 

It's also a civil offence so the other party would have to seek an injunction to prevent you doing it again. If they bring an injunction against the cutter there is nothing to stop them getting someone else next time so any injunction needs to be against your client. The trespass thing really is a non starter.

[HCR]

Yes it is, on the job I mentioned earlier I climbed the tree from my customers side of the fence (threw a rope) I roped into a limb right on the boundary.

 

But, TBH trespass is a pretty minor offence and if you were doing it to "abate a nuisance" I don't think you would face much in the way of penalty.

 

Trespass is a civil wrong (a tort) rather than an offence (except in defined criminal trespass). Remedy is damages based on actual loss.

[Ian C]

oh my god that WAS a nice tree

i cant belive some of the things iv seen latly

people seam to think they have the right to cut everthing back to there bondrey line round here

 

well they do and thats why they do it.

 

and some couldnt care less it it has a TPO either.

 

shame, that was a lovely looking tree.

[Pedroski]

Maybe it should have just been reduced a LOT more in the first place, then none of this would have come about.

[RobArb]

The "nuisance" is not "shade", its taking the airspace of another, why should anyone have the right to steal a neighbours airspace???????

 

In this country "shade" is not a legal "nuisance", as far as I'm aware you have little or no right to light, in order for it to qualify as "nuisance" you would need to be in such darkness as to need your lights on all the time.

 

yes thats right, i think the amount of light you have the "right" to is the equivalent of a candlelight from 6ft away, which is pretty dim:biggrin: