daltontrees

The tree is only a problem if it is a risk. Or offensive to the eye. Otherwise it is and will incresingly be good habitat for bug and birds. A good topping mught leave it safe for a few years, but will accelerate its decline, even if it appears to reinvigrate it temporarily. It might then be possible to leave it to disintegrate slowly and safely. Might be an idea to plant a replacement (I suggest Claret Ash) behind it to get it established for the future.

Agreed. I won't be helping him/her next time.

done

I have already covered this, compliance with a statutory requirement (condemnation by the Council and an order to fell them) is an exemption. It is not necessary also to prove risk. But even if it had to be proven, the legislation merely says "prevention of danger". It could be said to mean immediate danger but it could also just mean 'danger'. It could mean slight danger or serious danger. It could mean danger to property or danger to people. Contrast that with the Scottish legislation which says "necessary for the prevention of immediate danger to persons or to property,". I expect that's what FC wishes it says in England.

The Council can order works under Highways Act, it qualifies the works for exemption under the Forestry Act 1967. Joined up.

The law on this is clear once you know about it. You do not need a felling license for felling trees "in compliance with any obligation imposed by or under an Act of Parliament...". That would include road safety legislation. Get something in writing, anything, from the Council that says the trees have to go, and keep a copy. Then fell them. Do not apply for a license. Do not wait. There are addiitonal exemptions for "the prevention of danger" and for "the felling of any tree of the genus Ulmus which is affected by the disease in elms caused by the fungus Ceratocystis ulmi and commonly known as Dutch elm disease to such an extent that the greater part of the crown of the tree is dead". Again no license is required. All this assumes you are in England and Wales. Different law in Scotland. Very different in Ireland.

I have sent you a PM on a related matter

The law expects some toleration of encroachment and minor nuisance (see Fearn v Tate Gallery if you want to overdose on legalese) but you cant acquiesce to it.

'knowing the tree was there' is not a valid argument. There's a principle in law called 'coming to the nuisance' and the courts over the centuries have settled that it does not diminish the nuisancer's duty.

It can be theirs if you have a good case AND deep pockets. No amount of money will replace a good case.

If you had you wouldn't commend it quite so readily.

All tree vauations systems in the UK are artificial. Especially CAVAT which invariably grossly overvalues trees. It was developed by and much loved by local authorities, and was intended for use by them to value only local authority trees. Its use in civil claims is not supported by case law. The Helliwell system produces more credible figures but it too is artificial since it monetises the points attributable to a tree when deciding whether it should be TPO'd. The CTLA system is probaby the best there is since it tailors the valuation approach to the circumstances. When it produces outlandish figures it says these need to be tempered by reference to how much the real estate is worth. No-one can value trees just from photographs. Trees are propery, and the old adage applies... ther are only 3 things that affect the value of property - location, location and location.

There are situations where the Council could be compelled to prune or remove, either by court order or expectation of losing a court case. Dr. Mynors observes that these rarely occur because of the cost of litigation. But not because of the absence of a right. Proving the right of self-abatement is easier than proving the case for an injunction. Mere encroachment is abatable, full stop. Forcing the tree owner to do it and pay for it appears to have a higher threshold of 'actionable nuisance'. If it is based on dampness to the building a causative link would have to be proven. I am convinced that if case law continues to dribble out until the end of time there will never be a simple rule that predicts success in litigation. The Tate Modern case recently went on for pages trying to pin down the modern law of nuisance, going far beyond what was needed for the case in hand. It alsways comes down to fact and degree, and the behaviour and depth of pockets of the combatants. Put simply,the trees have no right to be there. If they are causing damage, even indirectly, they should be removed. It is probably easier and cheaper (however galling it might feel) to take matters into you own hands than to face the expense, delays and uncertainty of forcing the tree owner to do it. But the right exists to be enforced. Have a look at Delaware Mansions v Westminster (appeal) for more on rights to injunctions and damages.

2 issues. Does anything need to be done? Under what legal authority can anybody do it? Can't tell from the photographs if anything needs done. Probably just a matter of time before something needs done. It would require personal inspection. Control of the land initially is with the owner. If someone dies without anyone to inherit, the land passes to the Crown, and a request for confirmation of this could be made to the Treasury Solicitor. If there are risks they can be brought to thte Crown's attention, it will have legal liability in negligence for any harm or damage and may have a general insurance policy to address claims, or may be self-insuring. I can't see why the Council would have any powers to intervene. It's not a matter of refusing to act, it MUST have statutory authority to do so. If it's not a risk to road users, I can't think of any other statutory basis.

I don't agree with your analysis. Nuisance is not just physical damage. It is deprivation of legal rights to use and enjoy property. It is always a matter of fact and degree. And just because there is a right of self abatement that is not the only remedy.