Andy Clark

The original and still the best.....

In that respect I'm not sure to be honest. I think, and don't quote me here, that the tree owner would have grounds to recover the cost - even though the branches are their own. Simply because there was no obligation on him to not let the branches overhang, so did not have a duty to keep the tree/hedge sides up to the boundary - thus has suffered a loss that he had no legal obligation to suffer. And similar with the neighbour, In as far that personally i don't believe that the client would have grounds to recover the cost of disposal, or impose that the tree owner pick up the tab. I know others have suggested differently, however there is no stipulation that the neighbour must not let his tree branches overhang a third parties property - the stipulation is only that what ever branches do overhang, do not cause an actionable nuisance. (Health and safety risk, direct damage, indirect damage). And even then, the neighbour is only obliged to remove/remedy the nuisance. If that nuisance is one dead branch that is causing a health and safety risk, he only need remove that one offending branch, not side up the whole tree. Same with anything causing damage - he only need negate and remedy the damage, not landscape the entire garden or rebuild the entire house. If the third party choses that they do not want the branches overhanging their property, then that is their choice and I believe they are bound by all that goes with that choice.

The important thing to remember about Tort and Common Law, is that it is benchmarked and judged against the dutiful actions of a reasonable person There are no real set rules of what one must or must not do, but if someone doesn't act reasonably and causes a tort to another, then the other party can seek recompense from that person that their unreasonable actions caused a loss. So the established standpoint is that they are "obliged to offer" the arrisings back to the owner. And the owner can of course say "no thanks". This negates the historic principles of theft, that came about from when wood/fruit had a substantial value. As for dumping the arisings over the fence, regardless of the neighbour saying "no thanks", it would depend the consequences of throwing it back over. For example if it was thrown over and smashed the neighbours green house, then they would have grounds for a claim. If it was council land, then the council could pursue for fly tipping, or if ended up on the footpath could pursue for obstruction under the highways act. If it was simply thrown onto an open expansion of the neighbours lawn and caused no loss or damage, then apart from causing a feud, there's no real grounds for a claim. If all else fails, try and avoid being dragged into any dispute between neighbours, and just stick to what you believe is reasonable. Sent from my SM-N9005 using Arbtalk mobile app

Get on to the Council Tree Officer on Tuesday morning. If you can't get hold of him/her, then the Councils Planning Enforcement dept. Sent from my SM-N9005 using Arbtalk mobile app

Be very careful with this....... I know of a large consultancy firm that got sued, after they failed to utilise the 5 day notice period for a tree that they'd identified as being defective. The tree was a large mature tpo'd oak, identified as having a large over-heavy limb with a significant cavity and decay near the trunk. They made recommendations to heavily reduce the limb - but the limb snapped out, hitting a neighbouring resident, while they were still negotiating the consent for the reduction with the local T/O. The consultancy firm were sued, on the basis that they had been employed as professionals, and in the course of their work had identified the defect but failed to take the relevant steps to rectify it - I.e, because it was dangerous, they should have ignored the consent process, and just submitted a 5 day notice. On the same basis then, I would suggest that you too have been employed as a professional, to give advice to your client - who would therefore have a claim against you if your advice is then found to be not sufficient. If, as the professional, you believe the tree is dicey, don't waste time negotiating consent, for works that you don't need consent for. If you think the stability of the tree has been compromised and is at risk of collapse, then you can of course take whatever reasonable steps are required to rectify that risk under the 5 day notice. Sent from my SM-N9005 using Arbtalk mobile app

lol The kit wasn't in the truck. Well, not to begin with at least. The kit was inside a locked steel cage, which was inside a locked (wooden door plus steel inner security door) depot. The truck was parked in front of the depot. The little darlings jimmied the wooden door, sledghammered the inner security door, then jimmied the cage. There are six trucks in total, and they took all 6 sets of keys that were inside the inner office in the depot. LUCKILY, the other 5 trucks were parked down the road, so they only made off with the one parked directly outside the yard. Would've been a whole lot worse if they'd've discovered the other 5!

Folks, would be grateful for people spreading the word....... The Grounds Maintenance team from Tower Hamlets Homes, the Councils Housing ALMO, were visited over the evening of 15th Feb '14. Taken during the moonlit flit - One Ford Transit single cab caged back tipper - Reg. BD08AFJ VIN. WF0FXXBDFF8B65395. White cab, with Tower Hamlets Homes logos on doors, with black painted cage. Plus shiney stuff listed below with serial numbers and models - 177408482 Stihl FS 410 C-E Professional Clearing Saw 177519819 Stihl FS 410 C-E Professional Clearing Saw 177435393 Stihl FS 410 C-E Professional Clearing Saw 177519797 Stihl FS 410 C-E Professional Clearing Saw 177311966 Stihl FS 410 C-E Professional Clearing Saw 177352476 Stihl HS 81 R Double Sided Hedge Trimmers 177352481 Stihl HS 81 R Double Sided Hedge Trimmers 177352467 Stihl HS 81 R Double Sided Hedge Trimmers 177352473 Stihl HS 81 R Double Sided Hedge Trimmers 296100857 Stihl HL 100 Long Reach Hedge Trimmer 296100473 Stihl HL 100 Long Reach Hedge Trimmer 296100764 Stihl HL 100 Long Reach Hedge Trimmer 296485340 Stihl HL 100 Long Reach Hedge Trimmer 295914956 Stihl BR 500 Backpack Blower 296850290 Stihl BR 500 Backpack Blower 296434719 Stihl BR 500 Backpack Blower 296434710 Stihl BR 500 Backpack Blower 296434713 Stihl BR 500 Backpack Blower 295744962 Stihl SH 86 C-E Vacuum Shredder/blower 295744968 Stihl SH 86 C-E Vacuum Shredder/blower 295744961 Stihl SH 86 C-E Vacuum Shredder/blower 295744972 Stihl SH 86 C-E Vacuum Shredder/blower 968670852 Sthil RE128 Plus compact cold water pressure washer Any help well recieved. Possible reward for info leading to a succesful recovery of the stolen items.

To flip this on it's head, you could always advise your client to respond to the Highway Dept, advising that the trees are TPO'd, and as a consequence are not prepared to do the works that they have specified. . The Highways Dept would then be tasked with getting the works done, which would of course mean THEM dealing with the TPO issue...... Your client then just sits back and waits for the bill for the works to come from the Highways Dept. Granted, not the ideal solution, but a lot less agro then getting stuck between two LA depts who probably don't even talk to each other. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Let's throw this into the mix and get the grey matter ticking......... http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/documents/documents/publications/cabe/making-the-invisible-visible-summary.pdf

Good for you! And very impressive that someone accepts drawing a line and recognising their own limitations. There are lots out there that would have jumped at the work and taken the risk, just to turn a quick buck. You should give yourself a pat on the back, seriously.

Matt, I know a bloke in Bedford - highly recomendable. I'll PM you.

Excellent find Silvia, I think the key thing with CAVAT is to remember the realm in which it came to life, and then use it in a similar vein. ie, in dealing with mitigation of tree related building damage claims, primarily subsidence - in view of pressure from one party (the claimant) to fell the tree, Vs pressure from the other party (the LA) to retain the tree. Outside of that context, the system doesn't really work that well for any other application. I mean, the principle of the system allows the T/O and the claimant to be on a level playing field and meet in the middle, by being able to both demonstrate a monetary figure relative to their own respective standpoint. - eg, claimant has building damage that will cost £5k to repair if the tree is removed, £15k to repair via underpiniing if the tree remains - T/O has a tree worth £40k - thus the two can begin negotiation to look at the most cost effective way to find a resolution. In the example above, it is of course in the LA's interest to pay the £15k damages to underpin the property, than to loose £40k in asset value. Everyone's a winner. Ok, i've used it in defence of other damage related cases outside of subsidence - such as patio damage, tree pushing over wall, tree roots cracking car park etc...... but the principle is always a matter of HOW you use the figures. Namely, with the tree being woth "X" in monetary terms as an asset, then it is better to invest further in terms of repairs, up to a negotiated threshold indicated by the monetary asset value, and the tree gets to stay without a repeat of the damage - - Trees worth £150k have caused cracking to a car park - Car park costs £20k to resurface - if the trees remain it will cost another £20k in "X" years time as the cracking will undoubtedly re-occour, hence pressure to remove the trees. In the "olden days", justification to fell would most likely have been reached by the value of the costs of the tree works - £10k in tree work costs to fell vs consequtive £20k's to continually repair. But alternatively, taking into account the loss in asset value of the trees if removed, we can now quanify a rationale to invest an additional £10k to the £20k surfacing cost to fascilitate a Cellweb type engineering solution, and the trees can stay. - everyone wins And i think that's the key issue in the Leeds Metro case. Right valuation sytem, wrong application of the resulting figures, resulting in a square peg being used to try and fill a round hole. It shouldn't be a case of "We've lost £14m in trees, so we need to spend £14m in replacement planting" - That's just never even going to be possible. The figure should have been used to chivvy the planners to go back to the drawing board, and then applied as a template to justify further investment into "other" solutions that may have meant that the trees could have stayed - namely, "Do we loose £14m in asset value, or do we invest an additional £2m in re-working the project to make sure the trees can stay?". Same principle with your house building scenario - it's not so much about adding value to the property or making the builder pay for £50k's worth of replacement planting, more about reaching a quantifiable point for bringing pressure to the builder to invest further in the project and find an engineering solution to ensure that the tree can stay. Hope my ramblings make sense?

Tony, I think the point that's been missed though, regardless of the rights or wrongs of the system itself, is that the system is realistically only intended to provide a papertrail that an assesment was made, and act as supporting evidence to show how the conclussion to TPO or to not TPO was reached. I don't think it's meant as a "how to guide" for a TO, who, agreeably, should be able to walk through the TPO process with their eyes closed. On the flip side though, I have actually used it a couple of times in anger, but from the other side of the table - to argue that an exsisting TPO wasn't worth the parchment they were written on, and thus grounds for refusal of works were totally impractical.

Definitely just apply for the works you intend to do. The T/O should only grant or refuse consent, they shouldn't suggest alternative works - with the exception of imposing conditions of consent, but even then those should be based on the works you applied for. For example, if you apply for an all over 30% reduction, they can come back with a condition that you only reduce half of the crown in order to restore shape and re-balance the crown or whatever. Similarly if you apply to fell, they can of course impose the condition that you re-plant. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Mostly because of context. CAVAT was the asset valuation methodology given fair support by other industries outside of the arb world, as being fair monetary valuation of trees as a public asset - hence the JMP. We really do need to stop comparing apples and oranges here, as if these systems do the same job in the same way. They don't. A worthy arb, in my opinion, will always be savvy and open minded to all of these systems, and keep them in his tool bag to be used as the job dictates. . Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Good find I was looking back through CAVAT stuff today - http://www.ltoa.org.uk/resources/cavat The text from Jim Chamberlain at Islington is well worth a read. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Anyhoo, the salient point is that "Amenity" and the concept and principles thereof, are enshrined throughout much much more than just trees and tree preservation. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Fair comment. But aesthetic appearance is also one of the statutory criteria for listed designation. Pretty building, pretty tree - hence why I used the word "similarly". Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Glad you agree that context is everything. So now let's put trees and amenity and the LA TO into context of the much wider remit of both an LA Planning dept as a whole, and the TCPA as a whole, and remember that trees and tree preservation only in fact play a very small part in that wider aspect of the "amenity" criteria........ - The LA's powers to serve Section 215 improvement notices for example, in respect of land and/or buildings adversely affecting the amenity of an area. - All of the other factors in relation to Conservation Areas (ie, not just trees) and the Conservation Area principle being brought to life by the Civic Amenities Act. - Similarly with Listed Buildings. So I think that, yes, you've quoted the section from the "blue book" with regards to amenity in respect of trees, but I think it's key to remember that the principles of "Amenity" doesn't just start/stop with trees and TPO's. The principles of "Amenity" are well enshrined throughout the whole raft of the many aspects of planning legislation - and have been since the inception of the overall Act back in the 40's and the rebuilding of the country after the war. . Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Well of course it would be the only reason, purely because. the sole purpose of a TPO is to preserve a tree based on its amenity value Via guidance notes, such as the "blue book" that was, plus subsequent revisions, (which I believe is currently being re-written to coincide with the 2012 Regs); via CPD events, run by the respective TO associations and independent arb consultancies; in Peter Annett's day at the ODPM/DCLG, I'm also pretty sure he used to publish bulletins and updates also; advice notes from the AAIS...... As for one Authorities idea vs another, again, of course it would be different - in exactly the same way as one tree in one location is extremely different to another. A mature oak in the heart of a major conurbation is not the same as a mature oak in the heart of the Cotswolds. Granted, both are mature oaks, but both have a very different relationship in respect of their surroundings. Both TO's would therefore appraise each tree differently - as they should do. So again, it's simply that missing magic word again. "Context". Which can mostly be found when reading Chapter 3 of the blue book (as revised) . Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

I'm not dismissing a worthy debate, I'm dismissing a pointless debate. With the greatest of respect, the one consistent thing missing from the thread is the question of context. Until that is applied, it's mostly irrelevant. As an example, you pitch helliwell is fit for purpose...... What purpose? Assesssing the monetary assest value of a tree in relation to an insurance claim? No, I don't. And neither do a hell of a lot of others, as is evident with the creation of CAVAT, and the joint mitigation protocol. So when the thread is reflective of the methodology's and their accepted individual application, in context, then we might start getting somewhere. Next? . Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

We could adapt some of criteria from the hazard evaluation methodology's - specifically the portions that relate to size of part. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Not necessarily. Surely the salary would be recompense for their monetary value as a quantified asset, not as an amenity? Paying salary based on amenity value would surely be discriminatory? Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

It's not so much a "much loved" reason to say no, it's a subjective view of the tree, as a tree, in context of it's surroundings - both in the immediate and wider proximity - plus historic use of the surroundings, and prospective use of the surroundings - all made in respect of the duty to retain trees placed on an LA by the TCPA. Hence why we also have the appeals process, so that the Courts can add their ten-penneth to the equation also if need be, and agree/disagree on the TO's rationale for classifying the tree with an amenity value as such that it is worth retention. If the judge agrees that "it's a pretty tree", then so be it. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

I think many of our weather girls/boys are a great amenity asset, and should be celebrated accordingly. Now if we could figure out a way to apply a monetary value to those individuals, based on their respective amenity value, then we'd certainly have a subject worth debating. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk