Death warrant for scottish trees signed?

[daltontrees]

That's a nice bit of research, thank you. But what hope up here when the fate of deciduous trees are not even in the hands of secondary legislation or guidance but are right royally f***ed by primary legislation? Apologies for the outburst.... but maybe her majesty will refuse to give assent and the poor broadleaved recipients of gormless MSP activity will be right royally unf***ed. Would get my vote against independence instantly.

 

I tkae the point about death ensuing from excessive cutting. But the Act says nothing about that, it just gives a right to light. Again I fear for TOs that have to walk the fine line which willl be literally impossible for some broadleaf situations.

[daltontrees]

I have just spotted that the scottish Act received Royal Assent in May. Thanks for nothing Ma'am.

It still needs a commencement Order. Nothing being put forward in that respect yet though.

[Gary Prentice]

Thanks for the update , I'd forgotten about this thread so it made some interesting reading again.

[daltontrees]

It will be genuinely interesting to see how the powers that be work out how to calculate the light levels when deciduous trees are involved. And adjusting the overall light thresholds to account for more northerly latitude. Plus eventually how the courts work round the deficiencies in the drafting of the legislation.

 

The more I think about it the more I realise a couple of legal cases are going to be needed to clarify the law. The burning question is, if you have a line of broadleaves that block out lots of light in summer (so much so that if they were evergreen the English legislation would have them cut down) but in winter they block next to no light, do the two cancel out? The question cannot be answered by the legislation as it stands.

[Gary Prentice]

It will be genuinely interesting to see how the powers that be work out how to calculate the light levels when deciduous trees are involved. And adjusting the overall light thresholds to account for more northerly latitude. Plus eventually how the courts work round the deficiencies in the drafting of the legislation.

 

The more I think about it the more I realise a couple of legal cases are going to be needed to clarify the law. The burning question is, if you have a line of broadleaves that block out lots of light in summer (so much so that if they were evergreen the English legislation would have them cut down) but in winter they block next to no light, do the two cancel out? The question cannot be answered by the legislation as it stands.

 

So nothing new there (with regard to the red text)

 

I would suppose that one option available, either to the TO when applying the legislation or to the owners when complaints arise, is to do enough crown reduction to separate the canopies. Just a thought.

[hedgesparrow]

if they want them down below 2mtrs lay them as a hedge if that is how they should have been before getting out of hand can not do it with cypress etc but any others will lay fine. laid a 30ft beech tree hedge down to 4ft. looked at one today 30ft hazel with ash and others mixed in have quoted to lay that

[daltontrees]

So nothing new there (with regard to the red text)

 

I would suppose that one option available, either to the TO when applying the legislation or to the owners when complaints arise, is to do enough crown reduction to separate the canopies. Just a thought.

 

You're right in a way but (Pedantry alert!) if canopy separation was specified as an action it would then take the hedge outwith the statutory definition of a high hedge. It would then not be competent for the LPA to also impose preventative action to stop the problem recurring.

[daltontrees]

if they want them down below 2mtrs lay them as a hedge if that is how they should have been before getting out of hand can not do it with cypress etc but any others will lay fine. laid a 30ft beech tree hedge down to 4ft. looked at one today 30ft hazel with ash and others mixed in have quoted to lay that

 

That's entirely possible as a solution. But, when the law comes in for the first time we could have 200 year old Beech trees with heights of 30 metres (yes, not 30 feet) and stem diameters at 2 metres height of around 1 metre, coming into the definition of a high hedge. I expect the law is well intended but I astill think it is ill-considered when it will be used by people who have harboured agfrievance about deciduous tree shade for maybe 20 or 40 years.

[Gary Prentice]

You're right in a way but (Pedantry alert!) if canopy separation was specified as an action it would then take the hedge outwith the statutory definition of a high hedge. It would then not be competent for the LPA to also impose preventative action to stop the problem recurring.

 

Jules, you're such a pedant:001_tt2:

 

Ok, but as the hedge issue has to be attempted to be resolved before the LA get involved, if the owner is able to create separation, the legislation wouldn't become applicable.

 

Theoretically, the TO could view an application, on protected trees, favourably in an attempt at circumvention. Once growth made the act applicable again the owner could repeat ad infinitum .

 

It would be worth the expense of pruning, just to wind the neighbours up:lol:

[daltontrees]

D'oh. I take the point, if a complaint asrises crown reduction could take the trees outwith the definition in the Act. You have done me a big favour, thanks, I could advise clients in that way.

That oscillating in/out of legislation thing was exactly what I was envisaging. I have the sorts of clients who would relish the devilment of winding neighbours up.