Amelanchier

I only asked because as a rule of thumb, you can't suffer heave from removing a tree unless; a) the soil contains a sufficient proportion of shrinkable clay, b) the tree dessicated the soil upon which the house was built. I wouldn't worry too much about the spread of the roots in regard to direct damage to the house as the soil underneath the building is rather inhospitable (dry, nutrient poor and with little gaseous exchange). They may proliferate around the sides of the foundation however where condensation and rain is focused and of course they love a knackered drain. If you are worried about heave / susidence you'll probably need to contact a structural engineer as we'll just be able to give you the broad strokes of the picture.

Hows the slab doing?

Welcome to the forum. Your post is absolutley appropriate - its what we're here for! Putting the obvious future conflict between your house and the above ground parts of the tree to one side for a moment (which IMO are probably sufficient to justify its removal), what soil type are you on and was the house built before the tree planted?

I have an ancient herbal remedy I'll sell you for fifty quid, it works wonders with all the minor cyclical self-remissing ailments. Even if the symptoms come back, don't worry - you can try the double strength for a ton.

The grid looks fine so I presume the obliteration you refer to is regarding the "lumps of mud"? Whilst we might all shake our heads at the infighting and power struggles within Govt. is there perhaps the possibility that you have actually destroyed some archaeology? Kinda squashed history that can never be regained?

It is with regard to planning by virtue of the 2008 Planning act which introduced the 1APP form. The legislation explicitly refers to the acceptability of electronic communication.

I picked up a new pair of approach shoes at cotswolds last week and was told by the manager who claimed to be responsible for the allocation of discounts to groups that the ISA discount has expired. Apparently the account needs to see a minimum grand and a half per annum but only bagged a couple of hundred. I guess that might be a regional thing though?

I see what you're getting at but I think there are still some problems with that interpretation - not least because the CRoW act only deals with designated access land which is necessarily in the open countryside rather than private parkland. Also the legislation explicitly states that whatever their origin, (i.e., whether they were planted or not) trees are to be regarded (for the purposes of the law) as 'natural' - if someone has been hacking them about to the extent that they have created a hazard then they have perhaps been reckless (and are then liable) but the features may still remain 'natural' (again for the purposes of the law). Interesting that no liability is owed with respect to any body of water as well, whether natural or not. I don't think for a minute that the CRoW act means that landowners can turn a blind eye to obvious dangers, I suspect that it aims to sensibly absolve them or responsibility for those parts of their land that they might not reasonably even see from one year to the next! There is probably some politics here too - it would be difficult enough to grant the public a right to roam without giving the landowners something in return (freedom from ambulance chasers). I just happen to like the approach, but it wouldn't be appropriate in every circumstance.

Like the man says - Mynors is the bible. He was due to be releasing a new version in 2010 but maybe he's just waiting for a decent gap between high profile cases!!!

One could say that but I would suggest that it presents a mistakenly narrow view of the situation. Not all failures are predictable and therefore it is beyond the capacity of any inspector to identify invisible defects them however short the inspection interval. Similarly, as healthy trees, or parts of healthy trees, can fail without the presence of incipient defects if subjected to sufficient force (i.e., gales) your dichotomy is a presciption for unnessecary felling. The only 'safe' tree is one that no longer exists.

Ha - seems that while I was being careful about the legal implications of my post I fluffed the basics?!?

Well having gone back to the primary legislation of the CRoW act I can now answer these queries without relying on faded half memories... With regard to the OL acts, CRoW takes primacy because it amends the earlier legislation and contrary to my previous recollection it is explicit on the relevance to trees(my empasis in bold); "13 Occupiers’ liability. (1)In section 1 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (liability in tort: preliminary), for subsection (4) there is substituted—. “(4)A person entering any premises in exercise of rights conferred by virtue of—. (a)section 2(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, or. (b)an access agreement or order under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949,. is not, for the purposes of this Act, a visitor of the occupier of the premises.” (2) In section 1 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 (duty of occupier to persons other than his visitors), after subsection (6) there is inserted—. “(6A)At any time when the right conferred by section 2(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 is exercisable in relation to land which is access land for the purposes of Part I of that Act, an occupier of the land owes (subject to subsection (6C) below) no duty by virtue of this section to any person in respect of—. (a) a risk resulting from the existence of any natural feature of the landscape, or any river, stream, ditch or pond whether or not a natural feature, or. (b) a risk of that person suffering injury when passing over, under or through any wall, fence or gate, except by proper use of the gate or of a stile. (6B) For the purposes of subsection (6A) above, any plant, shrub or tree, of whatever origin, is to be regarded as a natural feature of the landscape. (6C) Subsection (6A) does not prevent an occupier from owing a duty by virtue of this section in respect of any risk where the danger concerned is due to anything done by the occupier—. (a)with the intention of creating that risk, or. (b)being reckless as to whether that risk is created.” So, landowners still have a duty of care on access land but the liability is relaxed. Not all visitors are visitors and trees are natural regardless of the inequitious intervention of 'man'. Doesn't that seem sensible? Even better, in deciding liability, the act specifically mentions that there may be special consideration given to the finacial burden of allowing access and the responsibilities of maintaing the character of the countryside. To that end I've attached a English Nature Guidance note which essentially covers the issue. English Nature CRoW Liability.pdf

Of course targets and risk are the primary concern of the risk assessment, I just meant that the courts (e.g., Atkins v Scott 2008) and the guidance (such as the oddly numerous case studies in the NTSG draft appendices) both place a considerable emphasis on the notion of what system of inspection is practical for a reasonable landowner to implement. For sure there was a risk (there is always a risk!), but I don't think it was reasonably practical for the NT team to have surveyed the site/tree in greater detail. And given the relationship between risk and benefit - any greater use of resources in reducing risk necessarily reduces benefits (inappropriate tree work, closed footpaths, unmanaged facilities, reduced planting...). I'm not sure about the CRoW thing - I guess it would be hard to argue that trees big enough to cause harm weren't 'natural' or 'features'?! Although I believe the intention was to encompass rivers, caves, cliffs, etc.

Estimate based on diameter measurements and green wood weights.

The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 indemnifies landowners against injury to third parties in respect of 'natural features' on designated access land. Seems sensible to me.

Having seen the branch in question, been up the tree (albeit in a mewp), worked with the forestry team at Felbrigg, and as I now working for a company who was involved in the original coroners case (NB: verdict = accidental death), I feel it's reasonble that I add my (carefully worded) opinion to this thread. As far as I recall, the branch failed at an included union from a considerable height. It was determined at the coroners inquest that any cracking or bark separation would only have been visible from an aerial inspection. Essentially, it was an included union on a Beech tree in a Beech compartment within an ancient woodland (i.e., there are a lot of limbs like that still attached with no problems). The inspection regime was appropriate to the resources available (two full time foresters and a smattering of volunteers) and scale of the site (1760 acre parkland and 520 acre woodland). Its clear to me that the NT discharged their duty of care. Anyone who has been to the site will know that they manage an extensive and aging stock which has considerable historic, biodiversity and amenity value. Risk must always be judged against benefits. I'm tempted to speculate about the motives behind the arboricultural advice that the family have recieved but that would probably be unwise and unprofessional. I trust that it will all come to light in the transcripts.

The section 201 direction is such a ubiquitous part of almost every Order that the upcoming changes will amalgamate its function into the the basic text. Subsequent to what Treequip has said - unconfirmed Orders lapse in terms of enforceablility but, provided that no objections were made during the statutory window and assuming that the trees still exist, they can be confirmed at any time.

Its only matched by the response to consultation threads

Unfortunately not according to:- D, Ridgers, K, Rolf and Ö, Stål. (2006) Management and planning solutions to lack of resistance to root penetration by modern PVC and concrete sewer pipes. Arboricultural Journal 2006, Vol. 29, pp. 269–290 Essentially Ridgers et al set up a field trial with intact and variously damaged pipes within a realistic usage situation and planted hybrid black pops above them. Six years later, they airspaded them out and looked for root intrusion. Poplar roots had managed to breach the normal spec seals within both new types of drain and even past an additional external tape seal in one instance. Roots were found to breach the drains around its entire circumference not just below the water level. The authors considered likely that the additional condensation around the increased surface area of the joints increase root proliferation which increased penetration. This is one of our industries best kept secrets! I remember discussing this paper with some LA colleagues who were previoulsy unaware of it. Despite its compelling conclusion they were adamant that they would not revise their policy on drain damage...

Just as a point of principle - whilst it may seem that producing a long list of references adds weight to your arguement this approach (the info-flood!) only has value when the evidence basis of the references is varied, independent and of consistent quality. That said, and while I don't agree with your arguement, I am pleased to see someone actually trying to support their point with the literature!

Might also be worth noting that on a purely pedantic basis the Gri Gri is intended for use with true dynamic (i.e., rock climbing) ropes.

In legislation limbo at the moment I would think what with the departure of the Govt.'s sole arboriculturalist (Peter Annett). Having said that, planning reform in other areas is moving quickly so I should think its still on the cards this year sometime.

I don't have to know you to make a judgement on your comments and I don't have to live where you live to disagree with your posts. Personal context does not shield you from scrutiny - it's irrelevant. The key point to take home from this ever so exciting debate is that I've asked you not to use a particular term on the site again.

Left that job over a year ago but I kept my sunny disposition.

Incitement to commit an illegal act is an offence under UK law (and therefore we don’t need a separate forum rule). However, I’m not sure that remark would meet the tests of the legislation; I would imagine that there needs to be a real and actual possibility of harm occurring as a direct result of the incitement. If you want more borderline stuff try some of the theft related threads…