Giving back offcuts to owners?

[treequip]

Yeah, I wouldn't take that as read really. 5837 "should" have played a part in that in respect to the planning consent in the first place.

 

Sounds like a rare occasion that slipped/was blagged through the net to me.

 

Ohhh you do make me laugh stop it.

 

Recently had to remove a decent sized Tillia because the LA didn't notice it, along with all the other trees on the site.

 

They let the developer build a house 600mm from it

 

Not all LA's are that clued up.

[Andy Clark]

Oh I don't doubt it.

[daltontrees]

In that respect I'm not sure to be honest. I think, and don't quote me here, that the tree owner would have grounds to recover the cost - even though the branches are their own.

 

Simply because there was no obligation on him to not let the branches overhang, so did not have a duty to keep the tree/hedge sides up to the boundary - thus has suffered a loss that he had no legal obligation to suffer.

 

And similar with the neighbour, In as far that personally i don't believe that the client would have grounds to recover the cost of disposal, or impose that the tree owner pick up the tab.

 

I know others have suggested differently, however there is no stipulation that the neighbour must not let his tree branches overhang a third parties property - the stipulation is only that what ever branches do overhang, do not cause an actionable nuisance. (Health and safety risk, direct damage, indirect damage).

 

And even then, the neighbour is only obliged to remove/remedy the nuisance. If that nuisance is one dead branch that is causing a health and safety risk, he only need remove that one offending branch, not side up the whole tree. Same with anything causing damage - he only need negate and remedy the damage, not landscape the entire garden or rebuild the entire house.

 

If the third party choses that they do not want the branches overhanging their property, then that is their choice and I believe they are bound by all that goes with that choice.

 

Thanks. Seems you are drifting there towards the position that the disposal costs should be recoverable from the tree owner if the removals were as a result of abatement of an actionable nuisance. If so, a dispute about costs would be settled on retrospective proof that the nuisance was actionable.

 

Without a legal precedent to stand on, it seems anyway that that is the sort of fair and balanced position that a court would apply, as it would be consistent with established law.

[openspaceman]

An old thread but just saw a wannabe youtube millionaire set forth on this subject from 1minute 17 seconds in

 

 

[spudulike]

Sounds about right from my experience of a former neighbour at a previous property known as "The Bell End". 

[openspaceman]

It's what I believe and think I said earlier in the thread but I don't know of any cases that would have set the precedent.