Tree root questions

[Gary Prentice]

So....can someone take action to abate a nuisance caused by the roots of a boundary (TPO'd) tree , i.e. a tree jointly owned by the person suffering the nuisance and a neighbour?

 

I've had experience of this, it got a bit involved and finally ended up ay Pins with Mick Boddy.

 

Have you a specific question?

[Gary Prentice]

This might help

 

Abating Nuisance http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/trees-law/57064-abating-nuisance.html

[MATTMOSS]

So....can someone take action to abate a nuisance caused by the roots of a boundary (TPO'd) tree , i.e. a tree jointly owned by the person suffering the nuisance and a neighbour?

 

My answer would be no.

[Gary Prentice]

My answer would be yes - after due process and careful consideration as to the wording of TPO application forms. assuming that the nuisance is both actionable and significant.

 

Edit. But, the degree of damage (assuming there is), the availability and cost of engineering solutions and the amenity value of the tree are also factors.

Edited January 25, 2015 by Gary Prentice

[Paul Barton]

I've had experience of this, it got a bit involved and finally ended up ay Pins with Mick Boddy.

 

Have you a specific question?

 

This might help

 

Abating Nuisance http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/trees-law/57064-abating-nuisance.html

 

Thanks Gary - I had forgotten about your mammoth thread about a similar issue. I've just read through it and now I have a headache!

 

I think my case is simpler though, here's a summary:

 

My client (A) has a tree growing on the boundary of her property with her neighbour (B). The tree is a mature False Acacia and is covered by a TPO - I don't know the details of the TPO as yet.

 

The tree is disrupting the block-paved driveway of A's property - not severely but enough to cause a trip-hazard already. An application to fell the tree was made by B last year, reasons given were shade, proximity to houses and damage to A's drive. This was refused and the recommendation of an engineered solution recommended to repair the drive. No 'expert' advice in the form of a report was submitted with the last application though.

 

My client (A) wants me to prepare a new application with accompanying report to fell the tree. My initial thoughts seeing the site on Friday were that lifting the affected pavers and pruning surface roots would abate the nuisance in the short term. However, the tree is fully mature and has a fair bit of deadwood in it - a SLE of 10-20 years in my opinion.

 

A CAVAT valuation came out as £14.5k. Presumably repairing the drive would be less than this, but future damage of the drive is foreseeable so ideally the client would prefer to have the tree removed.

 

Reading through your case last year, it seems that it is better to make an application to fell rather than relying on exemptions to prune the roots now, otherwise there can be no possibility to claim compensation for future damage, correct?

[tree79]

Sound like a difficult one.

in the past I have removed tpo trees which have been proven to cause damage, mainly to houses but I do remember one, which was a large mature oak, which was LA owned. The roots where damage 4 different houses(mainly rear patios) the house owns worked together and I did go to court, and they won.

 

I know Birmingham city council used to approve rooting pruning on cases like yours, so as already said in earlier posts, that may be worth looking at to

[Jesse]

Thanks Gary - I had forgotten about your mammoth thread about a similar issue. I've just read through it and now I have a headache!

 

I think my case is simpler though, here's a summary:

 

My client (A) has a tree growing on the boundary of her property with her neighbour (B). The tree is a mature False Acacia and is covered by a TPO - I don't know the details of the TPO as yet.

 

The tree is disrupting the block-paved driveway of A's property - not severely but enough to cause a trip-hazard already. An application to fell the tree was made by B last year, reasons given were shade, proximity to houses and damage to A's drive. This was refused and the recommendation of an engineered solution recommended to repair the drive. No 'expert' advice in the form of a report was submitted with the last application though.

 

My client (A) wants me to prepare a new application with accompanying report to fell the tree. My initial thoughts seeing the site on Friday were that lifting the affected pavers and pruning surface roots would abate the nuisance in the short term. However, the tree is fully mature and has a fair bit of deadwood in it - a SLE of 10-20 years in my opinion.

 

A CAVAT valuation came out as £14.5k. Presumably repairing the drive would be less than this, but future damage of the drive is foreseeable so ideally the client would prefer to have the tree removed.

 

Reading through your case last year, it seems that it is better to make an application to fell rather than relying on exemptions to prune the roots now, otherwise there can be no possibility to claim compensation for future damage, correct?

 

All great posts, just one query, wouldn't shade from a False Acacia be classed as Dappled shade ? just picking things apart.

[Paul Barton]

All great posts, just one query, wouldn't shade from a False Acacia be classed as Dappled shade ? just picking things apart.

 

Yes, the TO pointed that out in the refusal notice from the previous application.

[Jesse]

Yes, the TO pointed that out in the refusal notice from the previous application.

 

Was it AA guidance note 5 from memory ? Good paper if its the one i remember, but would it not be better just to argue that the tree is dying. The vast majority seem to be.

[Gary Prentice]

Thanks Gary - I had forgotten about your mammoth thread about a similar issue. I've just read through it and now I have a headache!

 

I think my case is simpler though, here's a summary:

 

My client (A) has a tree growing on the boundary of her property with her neighbour (B). The tree is a mature False Acacia and is covered by a TPO - I don't know the details of the TPO as yet.

 

The tree is disrupting the block-paved driveway of A's property - not severely but enough to cause a trip-hazard already. An application to fell the tree was made by B last year, reasons given were shade, proximity to houses and damage to A's drive. This was refused and the recommendation of an engineered solution recommended to repair the drive. No 'expert' advice in the form of a report was submitted with the last application though.

I can see shade being negated due to species. Proximity? the tree was probably in the same proximity when the order was made - depending on the age of the house. Did the LA propose an engineering solution?

My client (A) wants me to prepare a new application with accompanying report to fell the tree. My initial thoughts seeing the site on Friday were that lifting the affected pavers and pruning surface roots would abate the nuisance in the short term. However, the tree is fully mature and has a fair bit of deadwood in it - a SLE of 10-20 years in my opinion. This will likely result in a refusal to fell, the tree can be deadwooded and probably exist for a number of years yet.

 

A CAVAT valuation came out as £14.5k. Presumably repairing the drive would be less than this, but future damage of the drive is foreseeable so ideally the client would prefer to have the tree removed.

 

Reading through your case last year, it seems that it is better to make an application to fell rather than relying on exemptions to prune the roots now, otherwise there can be no possibility to claim compensation for future damage, correct?

 

As I understand it, if you don't apply to remove it now, future damage doesn't have to be considered by the authority. It's only costs resulting directly from the refusal that may be claimed.

 

I think my first action, before any application, would be to discuss the issue with the Arb Officer. If the authority thought that an engineering solution was a viable alternative to felling, what was it? Everything is possible if enough money is thrown at it. Would raising the drive level mean that highways would have to alter the footpath level (assuming access is across a footpath)?

 

After sounding out the T.O and his/her level of desire to retain the tree, it should be easier to determine what's required in an application. Your client seems to want the tree gone anyway, so the application would have to be based on removal due to:

 

1) the additional cost of repairing the drive with the tree retained -engineering solution and the impracticability of doing so, expenses that would be claimed for.

 

2) negating the viability of root pruning as being detrimental to a tree that sounds in poor(ish) health. I don't know what information is available to the tolerance of the species to root loss, but if you can find out, reference it, and use it to support your argument.

 

You may find that on discussing the problems of the engineering solutions, the TO will simply accept the limitations of them and consent removal anyway as there are no reasonable alternatives, depends on the desire to retain it.

 

If it's a case of they want to keep it, they have already acknowleged the damage issues in the previous refusal, so a new application really has to remove all the solutions that can now be used to defend it.