Tree root questions

[daltontrees]

I think my case is simpler though,

 

You've got to be joking! YOur case takes in several of the bugbears of tree law (i) does a TPO cover all parts of a tree regardless of whether some parts like troots are not in the TPO area? (ii) when is encroachment an actionable nuisance? (iii) what does necessary mean in the context of abatement of a nuisance? (iii) who is the owner of the roots of a boundary tree?

 

I have never seen any one of these trees fully answered individually, never mind when they all relate to one tree.

 

Initially my thought is that the exemption cannot be used by either co-owner of the tree, that root pruning would require an application and that this or an application to fell could be refused if a reasonable engineering alternative is possible. Plus the compensation clock doesn't start running until a refusal, and only if the application gives the Council all the information it needs to be aware of the foreseeability of ongoing damage.

[Gary Prentice]

I never said it was simple Jules:biggrin:, I'd suggest that Paul goes forward very cautiously, hence the initial contact with the TO.

 

I made errors in my application (from the thread) and would certainly approach a similar tree differently with the benefit of hindsight.

 

Anyway, Happy New Year:thumbup1:

[daltontrees]

That's got to be a record for latest happy new year, but cheers anyway and I wish you a merry christmas.

 

It's easy to dole out 'helpful' advice from my cosy office, I'm not signing the application form. And I have the benefit of hindsight from your situation last year. I have been accused of being too literal about things sometimes, but see when those judges can do 5 pages on what 'necessary' means, I think that being literal isn't so daft.

[Paul Barton]

Thanks guys - very helpful posts.

 

I think a chat with the TO is a good idea Gary - we have a good working relationship so I should be able to gauge his stance on an application and thoughts on an 'engineered solution'.

 

This concept of not being able to abate a nuisance caused by your own tree is a strange one. To think that you are entitled to sever the roots of your neighbours tree but not your own seems bonkers!

 

I'll keep you posted on the progress, unless I make a hash of it all and am too embarrassed .

[Sisyphus]

The roots are always protected with very few exceptions.

One of which is if they are blocking an Ordinary Watercourse, that is one which drains the Public Highway It can be a ditch, a stream or a river.

I went through this with my local council and found that the Land Drainage Act 1991 trumps a TPO in this instance.

You don't even need to inform the council in advance although the owner of the tree did afterwards which led to an investigation but I was cleared of breaking any law.

[daltontrees]

The roots are always protected with very few exceptions.

One of which is if they are blocking an Ordinary Watercourse, that is one which drains the Public Highway It can be a ditch, a stream or a river.

I went through this with my local council and found that the Land Drainage Act 1991 trumps a TPO in this instance.

You don't even need to inform the council in advance although the owner of the tree did afterwards which led to an investigation but I was cleared of breaking any law.

 

I've never come across this Act before but it does seem to come under the exemption heading of "in compliance with any obligation imposed by or under an Act of Parliament".

[fagus]

High jacking the post slightly as I take it removing the trees is not being requested. Root presence is often used as an issue to get rid of trees

 

Variabilities are inevitable such as Specie and risk assessment i.e who uses and how often is the area used. If it were your tree and your block paving I think a top slice off the root (with permission if needed) and relay surface and forget about it for years would be what you would do; so why not explain this to the client.

 

I recall on footpaths a slope construction to agreed specification, both sides, over the roots is acceptable to highways authority.

 

We all manage to walk and drive over the speed controllers- sleeping policeman.

[Chris at eden]

High jacking the post slightly as I take it removing the trees is not being requested. Root presence is often used as an issue to get rid of trees

 

Variabilities are inevitable such as Specie and risk assessment i.e who uses and how often is the area used. If it were your tree and your block paving I think a top slice off the root (with permission if needed) and relay surface and forget about it for years would be what you would do; so why not explain this to the client.

 

I recall on footpaths a slope construction to agreed specification, both sides, over the roots is acceptable to highways authority.

 

We all manage to walk and drive over the speed controllers- sleeping policeman.

 

I would give that one a miss. If you slice the top off the root and lay pavers on top the root will form wound wood and move the blocks. You would also be creating a large wound as appose to a small one from root pruning

[Chris at eden]

I've never come across this Act before but it does seem to come under the exemption heading of "in compliance with any obligation imposed by or under an Act of Parliament".

 

Sounds about right to me. You could also prune dead roots, those required to implement full planning consent, etc. Oh and my personal favourite, root pruning in the interests of national security. That is just cool.