Jump to content

daltontrees

Member
  • Content Count

    3,741
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About daltontrees

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Personal Information

  • Location:
    56degN 4degW

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'd say ity is indeed an umbrella pine Sciadopytis verticillata
  2. Yes the article shows that once trees stop putting on height the t/r 'rule' ceases to have relevance.
  3. Sounds like this is a legal question rather than an engineerign or arboricultural issue. I can't tell a lot from the pictures but as you describe it it shouldn't take much to show that soil with or without trees on the adjacent land is causing damage to the wall. An engineer or a building survey or could do this. The tree aspect would be contributory but probably isn't as fundamentally important as the difference in ground levels. The question seems to me to be whether the neighbour has the right to rely on the wall as a retaining structure. At common law adjacent landowners cannot rely on built structures to retain their land. But it's not as simple as that because in the past some agreement may have been reached that trumps common law. If it was not recorded by changes in titles then it was only a personal agreeement and if the property or properties have changed hands since then the agreement may have ceased to have any enforceable effect. In other words, you'd be back to the common law situation or the default situation in the titles. I'd start with an inspection of title. That will help inform your options. At one extreme you could be bound to repair the wall to continue providing support to a neighbour, at the other extreme yor neighbour could be liable in negligence for repairing or reinforcing the wall.
  4. I'd advise saying nothing, not even here on Arbtalk. It could get ugly and anything you say could be used against you. Be careful but don't worry. As the saying goes, the law works best when it is subservient to the honesty of the case. PM me if you want pointed in the right direction.
  5. It sounds like all you have seen is an internal repot of handling that indicates mindedness to approve. If so, it's not approval and you shouldn't proceed with the works yet. You have a right to appeal the non-decision, after 8 weeks from application. And just be careful here. You can appeal any time after that if you don't get any decision, but if you get a late decision that you don't like, you only have 28 days form the decision to appeal. Here's where it makes a difference where you are. Someone recently said the period for appeal turnaround in England is about 8 months! You could always appeal in the hope that it would hasten a decision, but i doubt it would.
  6. What country are you in? The answer depends partly on this.
  7. I wouldn't say 'observation of the content', I only read the punchline. I'll read it later too.
  8. That document is enough thanks. It concludes that " If all Orders are reviewed ...., the task will take eleven work-years to complete with one person working full-time on that project alone." That gives some idea of how much it would cost.
  9. The reason I asked was to get an idea of whether the survey covered you in the event of harm or damage to toy or a neighbour or BT etc. Based on what you have said and the photographs showing decay probably established for a number of years, there is a possibility that the major defect was missed by the surveyor. The only other option is tha the decay was seen but the surveyor consciously decided it was not 'significant' (which, based on the photos is a questionable decision). I frequently get shown tree survey reports by others and I correlate the use of certain phraseology with people of known abilities/inabilities, and anyone that says 'no wokr is required at this moment in time' is probably not fully understanding the role of the surveyor and how risk should be assessed. The fact that no re-inspection recommendation is given is I think the conclusive proof that this is an amateurish survey. You say it was by a consultant. Wow! I only know part of the story based on pictures and what you have said, but I'd suggest that the survey is close to useless to you. I hope you didn't pay a lot for it. If you did, you could be looking for your money back so you can spend it on a proper tree risk assessment from someone who is insured and competent. I am of the 'another tree survey' opinion. It might cost money but it might save a lot. But if you are worried enough to do some work to it, consider this. That would is never going to heal over. The wood is probably going to get weaker and weaker, and perhaps the branches above it are going to get heavier and heavier. Removing any branches is goign to remove the only chance the tree has to fend off decay and to put on reaction wood to compensate for the loss of strength. So it might be an all-or-nothing moment. There's an in-between possibility, and that is bracing, which needn't be fancy, nothing more than rope and a couple of slings. Or, removal of the top few metres of the affected stem wold buy you a number of years, even if it does accelerate the eventual inevitable removal of dead weight.
  10. I've been saying this for years. The situation has got worse recently with Councils arguing CAVAT values for the loss of trees, as if the TPO acquires the tree for the public. And someone mentioned compulsory purchase. If it were a compulsory purchase the tree owner would be entitled to compensation. As a consultant I'd love to be involved in a case contesting CAVAT in such a situation, because it's about time it was quashed, as it most certainly would be.
  11. I'd be interested in seeing that.
  12. I'd say tyhat defect is at least 5 years old. And I'd also say the tree is not going to recover from it. Two questions. Did the report on the survey last year mention the defect? What reinspection period did the report recommend?
  13. Yeah, don't use the one your wife keeps for cleaning her jewellery 😓
  14. I can't find any official source that says that this proposed ban is going to go ahead. H. along with Phil Hammond?
  15. Agreed on the first point. See what a shit and misleading system it is? I have no view on the second points.

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.