5837 2 Q's

[sloth]

Cheers for the replies everyone, some good points and comments

[stevelucocq]

Hi Sloth,

 

These are really good questions, and neighbouring trees are something that I have struggled with, and still do. I tend to agree that it is more or less pointless assigning a 'retention category' for a tree on 3rd party land (perhaps unless the neighbouring tree is clearly a U category tree).

 

I recently wrote a report for a slippery client that wished to build right up to the boundaries on 2 sides of a site. On one side in a neighbour's garden were a row of pollarded Limes that were of moderate quality, on the other an informal group of shrubs and small trees of low-moderate quality.

 

I categorised the Limes as 'B' and the group the other side as 'C'. I also advised in my report that the RPA's should not be impinged on either side, as this could lead to the decline of trees belonging to neighbours.

 

To say my client was unhappy with this advice would be an understatement - he is currently trying to find someone else to write the report that he wants, but it won't be me!

 

Regarding question 2 - yes, the damaged tree can be retained but I would advise the owner/developer of the failure potential of retaining the tree if it's that bad.

 

Did you get paid?

[sloth]

I would hope so!

[Paul Barton]

Did you get paid?

 

Not yet! I'll be taking action to get paid soon.

[stevelucocq]

Not yet! I'll be taking action to get paid soon.

 

How do you deal with it? Small claims court?

[Paul Barton]

How do you deal with it? Small claims court?

 

Yep. I don't do it myself - its one for our company Secretary to follow up.

[Giles Hill]

The main reason for categorising trees on neighbouring land is to identify constraints so that you can inform the design process; some trees are worth working around, others aren't.

 

When space is tight, it might be best to compromise the RPA of 'C' category tree if this allows you to provide more space around an 'A' category tree.

 

Another reason for categorising neighbour's trees is to provide some baseline info for the arb impact assessment. eg the impact might be considered to be low if the trees affected are of no merit or vice versa.

 

It doesn't matter too much if the neighbour likes the tree or not, the categorisation needs to be objective.

[Giles Hill]

The main reason for categorising trees on neighbouring land is to identify constraints so that you can inform the design process; some trees are worth working around, others aren't.

 

When space is tight, it might be best to compromise the RPA of 'C' category tree if this allows you to provide more space around an 'A' category tree.

 

Another reason for categorising neighbour's trees is to provide some baseline info for the arb impact assessment. eg the impact might be considered to be low if the trees affected are of no merit or vice versa.

 

It doesn't matter too much if the neighbour likes the tree or not, the categorisation needs to be objective.

[Paul Barton]

The main reason for categorising trees on neighbouring land is to identify constraints so that you can inform the design process; some trees are worth working around, others aren't.

 

When space is tight, it might be best to compromise the RPA of 'C' category tree if this allows you to provide more space around an 'A' category tree.

 

Another reason for categorising neighbour's trees is to provide some baseline info for the arb impact assessment. eg the impact might be considered to be low if the trees affected are of no merit or vice versa.

 

It doesn't matter too much if the neighbour likes the tree or not, the categorisation needs to be objective.

 

So you would advise not to protect the rooting area of a neighbours tree if you deemed it as a 'C' category tree?

 

If the development then trashed the roots of this tree and it died, wouldn't that be an offence - unless the roots could be proven to be an 'actionable nuisance'?

[Paul Barton]

The main reason for categorising trees on neighbouring land is to identify constraints so that you can inform the design process; some trees are worth working around, others aren't.

 

When space is tight, it might be best to compromise the RPA of 'C' category tree if this allows you to provide more space around an 'A' category tree.

 

Another reason for categorising neighbour's trees is to provide some baseline info for the arb impact assessment. eg the impact might be considered to be low if the trees affected are of no merit or vice versa.

 

It doesn't matter too much if the neighbour likes the tree or not, the categorisation needs to be objective.

 

So you would advise not to protect the rooting area of a neighbours tree if you deemed it as a 'C' category tree?

 

If the development then trashed the roots of this tree and it died, wouldn't that be an offence - unless the roots could be proven to be an 'actionable nuisance'?