daltontrees

I have come to respect your discernment in many matters, but it sure as heck doesn't work that way in the scottish Act. I consider it a very large part of the service I provide to argue that a line of trees is or is not a hedge and then that a hedge is or is not a hedge and then is or is not adversely affecting enjoyment. then and only then can the extent of adversion be quantified and the first stab at an action hedge height be tested. And then there's appeals...

Sorry but I don't agree with this. As I understand it, you are liable for the damages and losses arising from nuisance from when they occur, not from when you become aware of them. Also tree owner is not liable for abating a nuisance, the more correct language is that a tree owner is arguably negligent for not addressing foreseeable damage, and then only if the damage materialises. In other words liability is only tested by the courts if something goes wrong. Nobody is ever obliged to remove a tree nuisance preventatively, except by a court of law. OK, so I'm a pedantic so-and-so, but I feel better for straightening the record a little. If anyone doesn' think the distinction I make is important, ignore it. if you don't understand the distinction, please ask.

Westonbirt Arboretum

You definitely can apply the HH legislation to any row of evergreen trees. Trees can make a hedge, a hedge can be made of trees, trees can be TPO'd, hedges can become trees, trees can be trimmed to a hedge. Personally I don't have any difficulty at all with trees and hedges not being mutually exclusive. Conversely I do have a problem with them being mutually exclusive. And when the canopies aren't convincingly touching, the ASB Act makes the distinction. I have a couple of HH cases on the go involving lines of evergreen and deciduous trees, time will tell whether I can persuade councils or reporters that the distinction between hedges and trees is somewhat arbitrary and legally indefensible.

A tree officer with a psychology degree could have fun with a scchizophrenic hedge owner

No. In England the Act says "... property is being adversely affected by the height of a high hedge situated on land owned or occupied by another person." And this is the philosophiocal point I am making. If it was someone else's hedge you could apply and the HH notice would trump the TPO. But if it's your own hedge you have to suffer it. Most unfair. Primary legislation would be needed to change it. But such cases are so rare it will probably never get acted upon. In theory you could rent out your house but exclude the hedge from the leease. Then get your tenant to apply for a HH notice.

I know it's your first post and all that, and welcome to Arbtalk where there's rarely a dull moment, but please appreciate that (i) this is not a simple issue and (ii) it has been asked and debated many times over here. Please don't take the lack of replies as lack of interest or knowledge. It's just that people have written whole books about your questions and still not covered the subject. Poeple on Arbtalk could generalise and the information would be worthless if your circumstances are outwith the norm. They could specify minute detail in recommendations about what you ask and those recommendations would be useless because they are based on assumptions and exprience which are not applicable to you. I suggest that if you don't get many more replies you have a trawl through Trees and the law on Arbtalk and get a flavour of what's involved. Then maybe ask specific questions.

No, not really.

The distinction between loss and economic los is an important one in tort, and the statutory claim for compensation is I expect a quasi-tort provision. If you go down that route and I was the Council I'd be saying that he economic loss is not the cost of cutting teh high hedge inperpetuity but the difference between that and the cost of maintaining the lowered hedge. An Inspector might I think be unwilling to stray into legal interpretation that could act as a precedent. After all, he is there as an arbiter, not a judge.

Fabulous, never seen one even half that size. Maybe it should be renamed, Rigidoporous aescularius, it seems to have a liking for the Horse Chestnut.

I believe it's not called that anymore, it's something like NPTC City & Guilds 201, 202 & 203. Chris Simpson at Informed Tree Services in Hamilton is as good as it gets. The course might not be run in Hamilton, might be nearer to you. Ask.

[sigh!]

A variation on the duck principle. If it says it's a TPO, if an application for its removal has been refused because it's TPO'd and if trees in hedges can have TPOs, it's a TPO. Calling the Council's bluff by removing the hedge could be a very expensive gambit. I think there is every chance that the Council would pursue it and the owner could get fined and be ordered to replant. I believe the Planning legislation recently obliges Councils to review TPOs from time to time. Asking for a review would be better than asking for a revokation. I have just done this for a tree hedge up here, where I know the scottish Acts allow for it. If you ask why there's an Order the Council would I predict say something like "it was considered expedient in the interests of the amenity of the area". End of case. What I would say is that rather than dwell on history, put in a clean (free) application to remove the hedge, one that is not complicated by extension proposals. But if you don't give a reason (and a very good one at that) for the removal, the Council can refuse with impunity. If you give a good reason and it is refused, you can at least appeal to the Inspectorate and get an objective decision.

I agree, there seems to be no de minimis allowance for work to TPOd trees even if they are in a hedge. However, in practice I can't see trimming being prosecuted. I think it is usual in these situations for owners to apply for a term consent e.g. to be able to maintain the hedge at a specific height and width annually without further consent.

I'm with Chris@eden on this, the right is to compensation for damage, which even if there was a damages claim for TPO refusal would not include economic loss. Worth a try to gain sympathy for a hedge reduction but I don't think it's a valid threat.

Good point. Up here the HH Act states that HH notice trumps TPO. I am on the 2012 regs down there and the 2010 up here.

Yocold be right. It goes along with the pinnate leaves and long residual petioles. Also has the false end buds that characterise A.a. Look for big leaf scars, like a love heart. Does it smell bad?

Lo-ovely picture. Is that a recent (current) picture?

This is new territory for me. On what basis would the LA be due to pay for maintenance costs? Looks, incidentally, like a fairly straightforward maintenance job. And as another aside, is TPO consent needed to trim a TPOd hedge?

Isn't that what TPOs are, imposing on an owner for the wider public benefit? Since getting heavily involved in the High hedges thing in Scotland, I increasingly believe that a hedge that is TPOd that is adversely affecting the reasonable enjoyment of a property, which if it was the neighbour's would possibly be a succcessful HH application, is an unreasonable imposition on its owner. But the situation is clear in Scotland, HH Act trumps TPOs. Not so clear in England.

I can't figure out if the long thin 'twigs' are residual petioles of pinnate leaves If so, they mus have been pretty long.

surely the Council wouldn't agree to that either?

Looks vaguely apple-y to me.

Thanks, that's kind of where I thought it came from and it is not therefore a formal exemption. Indeed it wold appear that (as you suggest) because there is a TPO and because hedge trees can sometimesd be trees, the LPA has deemed them trees and has TPOd them. I had a look back through Palm Developments and was reminded that "As already noted, there is no definition in either the 1990 Act or the 1999 Regulations of “tree”, “woodland”, or “sapling”. “Tree” must therefore mean anything that would ordinarily be regarded as a tree. Thus it would not include a shrub, a bush or scrub. There is also clear authority that it includes small trees." The last point I think refers to Bullock v Secteratry of State.