Wonder why these fell over?

[richy_B]

I've been told on numerous occasions that the fifty/sixty/seventy foot tree that's just been felled came home in a carrier bag/boot of the car/through the post and they never thought it would get 'that big'.

 

And they act like it got that big over night! Instead of the 40 years they've been looking at out of the kitchen window.

[josharb87]

Been thinking on this for a bit now, but heres my take..

 

As a judge trying a case like this I'd have to put it down to an unforeseen accident due to an act of god...

 

The fact that those tree's had obviously been neglected would abrogate any intended or unintended damage to the root system trespassing onto the neighbors property..

 

Any costs should be borne by the owner of those tree's, and not the neighbor..

 

In a word, the owner deserved what he/she got.....

 

Why had the trees "obviously been neglected"?

[Gary Prentice]

But they're bit like kids, one minute you're changing nappies and wiping noses, the next they're off to uni or getting wed. They just grow up on you.

[Vespasian]

Why had the trees "obviously been neglected"?

 

allowing the tree's to grow so big their root system trespassed into the next doors property..

The size presenting a potential blight to the neighbors..

 

undue care and attention on the owners part so to speak...

 

 

It might just be that both parties are goin halves to the costs, maybe they get on and no one seems to mind that the tree's blew over.

But if they're at daggers drawn over the costs, then I'd have to side with the party who was potentially suffering from blight..

[Kveldssanger]

allowing the tree's to grow so big their root system trespassed into the next doors property..

 

The rooting environment of a tree extends outwards significantly from the main stem. By this logic, one would be equalliy guilty if an oak were to exist 15m from a boundary - fine roots would almost certainly exist beyond the threshold of the grower's land. Furthermore, this does not justify unreasonable actions by the neighbour to abate the 'nuisance' that was tresspassing roots. Severing so many roots so close to the main stem and expecting the tree to remain upright under significant loading is like me taking one of your legs off below the knee and expecting you to walk properly.

 

The size presenting a potential blight to the neighbors..

The High Hedges Act is clear here. A hedge is not, by default, too high. We also don't know the context here - are the neighbours new, are the owners of the hedge itself new, was there ever any expression of the hedge being too high by anybody? There may not have been. The growers may have had no inclination that any neighbours disliked the hedge.

 

undue care and attention on the owners part so to speak...

Potentially so, but we don't know the size and depth of the neighbouring gardens from the photos, nor can one justify a 'wrong' on the back of another 'wrong'. Masquerading the severance of roots as a justified act simply because the hedge is apparently too high is not right.

 

...if they're at daggers drawn over the costs, then I'd have to side with the party who was potentially suffering from blight..

I would disagree. I would side with the growers, as one cannot justify severing roots that close to a tree (or a line of trees). There really is no excuse. If the neighbours had explained to the growers what they were doing and they were fine with that then OK, but if not, then there is no excuse. If I am driving at 30mph down a 40mph road and someone slams up the back of me doing 40mph, they cannot use the justification that I was driving too slow for their liking and they subsequently just rear-ended my car as they 'didn't have to slow down'. Similarly, you can't sever roots nonchalantly and then cause an accident under the premise of "well, the roots were in the way of my landscaping operations".

[Luckyeleven]

Ok so what about if had continuously cut the roots since the tree was very young, I.e small pencil sized roots.

Obviously the tree would adapt but IMO it would still be likely to blow over if it reached that size.

[Vespasian]

Kveldssanger

 

The root of the problem is with the person who planted the tree's without due consideration of their future impact on the neighbors quality of life..

 

It wouldn't matter if its new owners, as they would of also bought the responsibility of the actions of the previous owner...in this case anyways..

 

in effect they own the tree's, they own the problem..

 

Now if a third party had suffered damage then I suspect the fella who chopped the tree roots might be held to account.

but if its just these two neighbors and no other party is involved, then its all down to the owner of the tree's..

 

I suppose it comes down to degree's of damage and fair reparations..

 

The root of justice is fairness, who planted the tree's?...

 

Oh an just because its legally allowed to grow conifers as a hedge stretching into the heavens, doesn't make the law right..

 

Theres an old adage that aught be taken into account, good fences make good neighbors..

Perhaps reckless tree growers might want to think on that..

[Gary Prentice]

By the actions of the root cutter, hasn't the owner suffered loss?

[Gary Prentice]

Ok so what about if had continuously cut the roots since the tree was very young, I.e small pencil sized roots.

Obviously the tree would adapt but IMO it would still be likely to blow over if it reached that size.

 

Loads of trees with asymmetrical root zones manage to stay upright. Self optimisation.

[Paul Barton]

Loads of trees with asymmetrical root zones manage to stay upright. Self optimisation.

 

Like this one I saw in the woods last weekend!