Jump to content

Log in or register to remove this advert

Recommended Posts

Posted
Worse than that, politicians imagine they know everything about it.

 

Shame its against the law to explain it to them ANOTHER way :sneaky2:

Log in or register to remove this advert

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

This will get interesting. When the first LPA tree officer decides that two mature beech can't be reduced to whatever height the formula decrees, what are the options?

 

The aggrieved neighbour then takes the council to court for not applying the law? I think this may keep lawyers and courts busy for a while.

Posted
This will get interesting. When the first LPA tree officer decides that two mature beech can't be reduced to whatever height the formula decrees, what are the options?

 

The aggrieved neighbour then takes the council to court for not applying the law? I think this may keep lawyers and courts busy for a while.

 

Well thats what I thought but aparently the "hedge" law trumps the conservation/TPO law .....

Posted
Indeed! It was even quoted by a lobby group of an example of how deciduous trees can be a barrier to light. The hedge is a national treasure yet if you lived in its shadow you would be within the law to aplly to have it cut down to a height that gave yoyu reasonable light.

 

I'd be very surprised if an application would be approved for the cutting of world record holder and tourist attraction.

 

But I get your point.

 

 

 

.

Posted
Well thats what I thought but aparently the "hedge" law trumps the conservation/TPO law .....

 

I didn't mean that. In our legislation there's something along the lines of the hedge can't be reduced to a height (that the complex formula decrees) that is harmful/would kill it. This is because the owner can't be deprived of their property.

 

So, a cypress hedge that is bare stemmed for a couple of meters couldn't be reduced to 2m, despite the formula used. Its up to the arb officer to decide how far to go.

Posted

So what about the Bird nesting part of the law . say for example there were 2 or more trees in a row ( constituting a Scottish hedge ) all containing a rookery in the crown ?

Posted
I'd be very surprised if an application would be approved for the cutting of world record holder and tourist attraction.

 

But I get your point.

 

 

 

.

 

Would the local authority have any choice, if all the criteria had been met and found to be applicable?

Posted
So what about the Bird nesting part of the law . say for example there were 2 or more trees in a row ( constituting a Scottish hedge ) all containing a rookery in the crown ?

 

The cases I've been involved in made allowances, in that the work had to be carried out during the winter.

Posted
So what about the Bird nesting part of the law . say for example there were 2 or more trees in a row ( constituting a Scottish hedge ) all containing a rookery in the crown ?

 

Wait till the nests are unused. Simples

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  •  

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.