Wonder why these fell over?

[Vespasian]

Are you just making this up as you go along?

 

The tree owner would be within his rights to seek a like for like replacement of the tree lost due to the negligence of the neighbour. Whether the tree was maintained, too tall, too green, too smelly, or whatever is totally immaterial.

 

 

Am I making it up as I go along

 

hahahah

 

Of course I'm making it up, thats to say I'm attempting to think what's fair..

 

Now heres the thing, theres good reason to for thinking I'm right.

I'm sure a law was being brought in a while back on the height of these tree's but the act was defeated in parliament or filibustered out on a private members bill... vested interests an all that...

 

So, even if the law says so an so on the matter, it aught be ignored.

tell the judge to stuff his compen were the sun don't shine as its not right an it ain't bein paid.

Explain that its an injustice, an you'll be taking this all the way the European High Court..

 

See if European Justice can be used to slap the judge down...

 

Anyone with an once of decency knows not to grow these thing beyond six or seven feet..

[Gary Prentice]

The High hedges act has been law for a number of years now.

 

 

Good luck with your defence in court, contemp of court isn't viewed very favourably by the learned gentleman. Have a read of Charles Mynors, Law of trees, forests and hedges, 2nd edition

[Luckyeleven]

I must admit I do not agree with the law on this one. If you are stupid and thoughtless enough to plant a potentially large tree right next to boundary, you should be responsible for it, no matter the situation IMO.

The law here in France states something along the lines of, If you plant any tree/hedge within 2 metres of a boundary it is your responsibility to keep it below 2 metres in height and your neighbors can force you to do so.

Had this rule been in place England I think the situation could have been avoided.

[Vespasian]

The High hedges act has been law for a number of years now.

 

 

Good luck with your defence in court, contemp of court isn't viewed very favourably by the learned gentleman. Have a read of Charles Mynors, Law of trees, forests and hedges, 2nd edition

 

Oh Yea, so a compromise was got at..

Pay someone four hundred quid if you wanna complain...

 

who's gonna do that?...

 

better to chop at the roots an see what comes of it...

 

Have you heard what Mr Bumble has to say on the subject...

 

If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass — a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience — by experience.”

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Gary, yr point in 55 about replacing with a tree of similar size, agreed, in theory, a possible outcome of restitution imposed by the beak, but in practice, surely the roots of a replacement of similar size would necessarily need to cross the boundary to be viable (mindful that this row appears to be right on the boundary)

 

I can't see, in reality, that it would be appropriate or enforceable to impose the rooting area of a replacement tree across an existing boundary.

 

Notwithstanding the fairly well accepted wisdom and logic of the arguments against the actions of the neighbour with the shovel, my sympathy (for what it's worth) is leaning towards the man with the shovel!

[Gary Prentice]

Gary, yr point in 55 about replacing with a tree of similar size, agreed, in theory, a possible outcome of restitution imposed by the beak, but in practice, surely the roots of a replacement of similar size would necessarily need to cross the boundary to be viable (mindful that this row appears to be right on the boundary)

 

I can't see, in reality, that it would be appropriate or enforceable to impose the rooting area of a replacement tree across an existing boundary.

 

Notwithstanding the fairly well accepted wisdom and logic of the arguments against the actions of the neighbour with the shovel, my sympathy (for what it's worth) is leaning towards the man with the shovel!

I can't see, in reality, that it would be appropriate or enforceable to impose the rooting area of a replacement tree across an existing boundary.

I don't for a moment suggest that imposition would be the case, but suggesting the level of restitution the law allows.

 

I'm not unsympathetic to the adjoining owner, I regularly speak to clients about hedges that cause discord (both owners and neighbours), but can't agree that it's the hedge owners fault for the current situation by not maintaining them at a level acceptable to everyone else.

 

Would the people defending the root-cutter be of the same opinion if, for instance, the owner was a widow of limited means, the complainant had just moved in and had plans to dig out the garden, and had not discussed his intentions?

 

'Over the garden fence' is a good read, promoting discussion towards resolution, before running to the law.

[Mick Dempsey]

Hi

 

Couple of thoughts.

 

Why did the tree(s) fall over. Wind and gravity. How much was as a result of the excavations, probably very little, at least not so much as would make any difference. Why have the trees fallen in the direction they did. If it was as a result of severing the roots then they should have fallen the other way. Wouldn't they?

 

Trees require 'maintaining'. No they don't. Tree surgeons who are out to get their next job, those who want to cut trees down/prune trees without any justification, or the ignorant claim trees need 'maintaining'. Trees have evolved over millennia as self-optimising organisms. They have not evolved in symbiosis with human kind in order that we 'maintain' them. Tree 'maintenance' results in harm to the tree. Harm which, if the tree had not been 'maintained', would not have occurred. Managing trees in our built environment is another thing, but it does not involve the notion that trees need us to 'maintain' them, or they need 'maintaining' at all.

 

Ed

These are leylandii, they have not evolved over millennia.

It was a hedge that has been left, you can clearly see where it was kept at around 2mtrs then someone stopped "maintaining it"

[Paul Cleaver]

What I remember of the law from many yrs ago was - you can sever roots of your neighbours trees on your property as long as it doesn't make the tree/s unsafe.

 

The trees have not been maintained yes and are at the height which make them at risk to branch failure but this is not the case.

[Kveldssanger]

Why did the tree(s) fall over. Wind and gravity. How much was as a result of the excavations, probably very little, at least not so much as would make any difference. Why have the trees fallen in the direction they did. If it was as a result of severing the roots then they should have fallen the other way. Wouldn't they?

 

I disagree here, though I can see where you are coming from. Whilst not all roots are created equal (in the sense that tension roots [wind-ward side] are arguably more critical than compression roots [lee-ward side] if looking at the root plate as a whole), there has been such significant severance here that I would suggest that the loss of compression roots more than contributed only a little.

 

Trees require 'maintaining'. No they don't. Tree surgeons who are out to get their next job, those who want to cut trees down/prune trees without any justification, or the ignorant claim trees need 'maintaining'. Trees have evolved over millennia as self-optimising organisms. They have not evolved in symbiosis with human kind in order that we 'maintain' them. Tree 'maintenance' results in harm to the tree. Harm which, if the tree had not been 'maintained', would not have occurred. Managing trees in our built environment is another thing, but it does not involve the notion that trees need us to 'maintain' them, or they need 'maintaining' at all.

 

Agreed, though I would point out this statement contradicts your first statement a little, in the sense that the rooting environment has been 'maintained' and has thus lead to issues with necessary anchorage. Self-optimisation was lost, and could not be regained in time for these adverse loading conditions, and thus the tree failed.

[peatff]

I fail to see how the neighbor could not be allowed to do as they wish on their own property.

Surely the argument could be the hedge owner should not allow the hedge to encroach on another persons land ?

I would be interested to see any court cases on something on this.

 

Me too, if it's my boundary and I want to do something I will do it as long as it is legal. The tree owners are at fault in my view for letting them get out of control. Trees may not need maintaining but hedges do and they have gone way beyond being a hedge.