Trees near Schools

[hazforester]

Hi All,

 

Was wondering if anyone knew of any legislation or has dealt with an adjacent landowner to a school, that refuses to remove a tree that endangers children in the school, if it was to fail.

 

Any help would be greatful

[treequip]

Hi All,

 

Was wondering if anyone knew of any legislation or has dealt with an adjacent landowner to a school, that refuses to remove a tree that endangers children in the school, if it was to fail.

 

Any help would be greatful

 

Well the question is, if it was to fail.

 

What makes you think it's likely to fail?

 

If it is morbidly dangerous the LA has powers to have the owner make safe

 

Other than that all you can do is remind the owner of their duty of care to others.

[hazforester]

The tree has several large Inonotus hispidus fruting backets on the tree has has declined since the last visit 2 years ago.

 

The school/ Govening bodies have request and sent letter to the land owner (Who's child also goes to the school), to no avail.

[sloth]

I know of no specific cases. As said, if the tree is clearly and imminently dangerous, like a partially windblown big beech leaning towards a play area, the council can 'force' its removal. But then the tree owner would be mad to leave it anyway!

If its dangerousness is questionable, and the owner wishes to retain it a proper inspection and report is likely the way to go. If the owner does not want to, and the school is concerned, they could offer a compromise on payment for the survey perhaps - try to keep everyone happy. Of course if it is not clearly dangerous the owner is perfectly entitled to do nothing, and explain himself in court 'if' anything went horribly wrong...

 

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Arbtalk mobile app

[treequip]

The tree has several large Inonotus hispidus fruting backets on the tree has has declined since the last visit 2 years ago.

 

The school/ Govening bodies have request and sent letter to the land owner (Who's child also goes to the school), to no avail.

 

Ask the LA to act under miscellaneous provisions.

[Kentish]

We have had this in the past, Sometimes the home owner will ignore the issue as they do not have the money or confidence to appoint a contractor to fell the tree. Sometimes a helping hand can be the school writing and offering to arrange the contractor, and pay the contractor, all the school will need is written permission to access land and fell the tree.....works for us!

 

Sometimes we dont have all the facts on their situation, so that can be the fastest route to a resolution

[Chris at eden]

It is unlikley that the LA will want to get involved in serving a notice under Mis Provisions as the powers are descretionary and the duty owner is clearly the tree owner. Addionally section 23 also makes reference to the tree being imminently danagerous but this varies with each subsection. They may be swayed by the fact that the tree is threatening a school.

 

Its not straight forward hence many LA's not wishing to get involved. Additionally, if the owner refuses to fell the tree subject to a notice the LA would then need to go in and fell and seek to recover the costs otherwise they would take on liabillity should something happen. Whether they are successful is anyones guess! Also the powers are to make the tree safe, if the council went in and felled the owner could argue that the tree only needed to be topped so that it could not reach the school even if it fell. As i said, not straight forward.

 

The real bizzare bit for me is those who receive a notice have the right to appeal to the county court within 21 days so that also kind of blows a whole in the imminently dangerous bit.

 

Its a bonkers bit of legislation but worth ago. Speak with the tree officer at the relevent LA. You never know!

 

Obviously the above is a tree consultant's take on legislation and should not be considered an expert opinion. Bit of a discalimer - sorry. If in doubt refer to a solicitor.

 

Cheers,

[Mark Cattell]

After all sand and done, some tree owners refuse to take on financial responsibility, for the safe management of trees, the individuals usually own many cats and are quite unclean in appearance.

I'd contact the tree officer asap. and get a site meeting, document your time/cost for this.

I'd then advise the school to get the trees down if the landowner/treeowner will give you permission.

I'd advise the school just to swallow the cost and get it down as the death/serious injury of a child will cost a lot more.

 

The LA may send there own emergency crews and bill the owner if the tree is that dangerous , the cost will then be passed on to the owner...

 

The owner may have mental heath issues/ be in severe financial difficulty or just an ass...

 

Also i have dealt with a lot of schools and the heads/managers can often be difficult, is there any history between the school and the house owner.

 

You may be better as a independent professional knocking the door and discussing options,

 

sharing costs

confirming tree status (dangerous)

providing owner with technical data supporting your assessment.

[Mark Cattell]

We have had this in the past, Sometimes the home owner will ignore the issue as they do not have the money or confidence to appoint a contractor to fell the tree. Sometimes a helping hand can be the school writing and offering to arrange the contractor, and pay the contractor, all the school will need is written permission to access land and fell the tree.....works for us!

 

Sometimes we dont have all the facts on their situation, so that can be the fastest route to a resolution

 

totally agree.

[daltontrees]

If it is morbidly dangerous the LA has powers to have the owner make safe.

 

I know you are probably just paraphrasing the Act, but what it actually says is "is in such condition that it is likely to cause damage to persons or property". That is in my mind a less stringent test than 'morbidly dangerous' would be. I would say it just means 'dangerous'.

 

And the problem ,as others have said, is tat it forces nothing. The owner can ignore a notice requiring it to make the tree safe. The COuncil then has to weigh up the odds of not getting its miney back if it goes in to do teh work and then tres torecover the costs. The only risk to an ntransigent tree owner is that the Council might pay more to get the tree made safe than its owner would have had to.

 

Serve notice on the Council, it's all you can do in statute. It costs nothing to serve notice, and it might result in action. It is a long process and the sooner started the better. The moral onus will be on the Council to do something about the tree, the blame will attach to the Council if it all goes horribly wrong, and the Council won't want that stigma.

 

OP has said so little... If the tree overhangs the school, the school can cut back the overhang, with minimal or no notice to the tree owner. Meantime the school management might be considered negligent if it doesn't exclude children from a playground under the tree for a few weeks while the dispute is moved along. If the tree is threatening the building to the extent that harm to the school children and staff is foreseeably severe, move to another room. If that can't be done, close it down. Blaming the tree owner is not enough, you must mitigate known risk. And, of course, avoid children being harmed. DFAOE...