daltontrees

It's not my case but the conclusion I reached from Perrin etc. was that the Judges went out of their way out of necessity (as they sometimes have to do) to define the law and seemed to conclude tha there were underlying intentions in the ststute that were meant for situations like this. Not really loopholes. I though the original poster did te decent thing by asking the Council and it is the COuncil that is hiding behind a technicality to avoid making a more difficult decision. Time no doubt will tell...

For the benefit of the original poster and any other visitors to the Forum, this statement is not strictly true because there are a few ways in which people can have a right to light, but it would be fair to say that they are the exception and that it looks like the OP has no right to light in this case.

Ask for a reduction in rent at the next lease renewal date, it will at least pay for electricity. Can the TV aerial be moved? I like trees but I would really hate to be under that one with no control over what is done to it. As has been said, if you owned the house you could prune away. But you're just the tenant so you can't. And the tree owner is your landlord, which makes things very much out of your control. I would also be checking the leas to see if I had any repairsd responsibility, and if I did I would be putting it on record to the landlord that I couldn't be responsible for damage to the roof. If I found I was responsible for insurance, I would be inclined to ask insurer whether the tree invalidated or increased the cost of the insurance in any way.

Turn the oiler up, if the saw has adjustable oiler!

A scots pine last week, was leaning at right angle to direction it had to be felled, so we left a hefty hinge and pulled it over. Worked a treat, landed the top of the pole on a tonne bag of brash 8 metres away so as not to break slabs.

It's getting a little off topic and the standard wisdom is that grass to the base of trees is not ideal. I would be more interested to know (pending hopefully some pictures or narrative about this tree) what changed your mind? I'm not ducking the question, I was asked your question during the AA Tech management exam and gave a model answer from the textbooks and passed the exam.

I'd go with Nothofagus antarctica.

Picture 2 Kretzschmaria deusta Picure 3 and 4 Polyporus squamosus

Very funny... I will start advising clients that getting the stumps chewed out by ferocious carnivorous hitherto-extinct reptiles is an option.

You will be amazed at your bargain when it arrives and breaks your threshold as it falls from the letterbox. Not to mention the dense wealth of info in it.

Footnote - having just read more of Perrin v Northampton it is even clearer. One of the reasons I suspect it was appealed and the appeal succeeded was tht thte original judgement ignored the judge's own stated view that the neighbour could abate the nuisance with impunity from TPO prosecution.

It took two reads, but I think I get it. The judgement is immensely helpful. Contrary to what you say (and assuming A is your client and B is the neighbour) it is very clear now to me (thanks to the court filling in the very blanks that we have been debating) that your client's neighbour can remove the roots as long as he doesn't rely on the law of nuisance or the TPO law to get access to your client's land to do so. That is the first point. Your neighbour can cut the roots from his side, with impunity, as long as they are causing damage and therfore constitute a nuisance. The next step to consider is whether your client can rely onm the TPO laws to cut the roots from his own side with impunity to abate the nuisance to the neighbour. Again the judgement seems very clear, he cannot. All of this is what we have suspected all along. Accepting the neighbour's clear rights and the client's clear restrictions, the hypothetical questions must be answered (i) is it reasonable for the Council to refuse an application to remove a tree that will be dangerous (and you would have to be satisfied in that regard) after the neighbour has removed the roots and support from his side and (ii) was it reasonable for the Council to refuse the application for the reasons it did? I have before given my tupppenceworth that the refusal might be technically correct but churlish. I still think that might be the case and partly for me answers the first question (which will be the essence of the appeal debate if your client appeals). I think the answer to the second question has to be no, the Council has no locus at law to interfere with the neighbour's absolute right to abate the nuisance, and the TPO laws do not give the Council any additional locus to interfere or prosecute or to say how he should accommodate the nuisance. So what can be done. The neighbour can remove the roots. He cannot be stopped or prosecuted. The tree will (if you are satisfied in this respect) be dangerous. It can then either be removed by your client with statutory immunity from prosecution or be the subject of a second fresh TPO application. If the second one is refused, the Council is responsible for compensation for damage caused by the falling tree. The dilemma is brought into clear focus before a second application is made. If you are satisfieds that the tree, after root removal, is dangerous you should tell your client and recommend he exercises his right to remove it without further consent. Conversely if you are not satisfied, then you should apply and give the Council the option to refuse and to take on compensation responsibility (but only to the extent that damage was foreseeable and couldn't be mitigated by your client in other ways) or to approve removal if it concludes that the risk of damage and harm outweighs the public amenity value. Is it not this very matter that has been anticipated and been the reason for the first application? Your client might be frustrated ant a refusal that ignores the inevitable issue, particularly when the Council has misguidedly refused on spurious grounds. You have probably got no obligation to advise the neighbour, but your client would be at liberty to have you explain to the neighbour his position (without prejudice, of course) as regards abatement and immunity from prosecution. If the neighbour then cuts the roots, the tree must go if it's collapse is inevitable and imminent, and should probably be the subject of a second application if it is not imminent. My advice to the client about whether to appeal now would probably depend on the neighbour's immediate intentions as regards root removal. If he plans to cut, the course ahead is reasonably clear. If he does not and plans to tolerate the roots, the problem disappears. If he wants to force your client to abate the nuisance by other means he, well, can't. If he invites you or your client to cut the roots at his yoyur client's expense but on the neighbour's land, the way ahead is just as clear as if the neighbour had wielded the saw, it matters not whose hand cuts, only who instructed it (i.e. the neighbour). I hope my opinion and analysis helps. I long to hear the outcome. If your head was nipping before, I only hope I haven't made it worse.

That book on ebay is in my opinion excellent, it took me months to read though as it is hefty and detailed. And remains a good reference text.

Grass below the canopy is rarely a good start. I too would be interested in seeing the context.

Oh, please let's not! The correct term is Decay, because that's what Sgigo said it is. WHta is now being debated is whether Shigo was right or chose the right word, that's a different matter. Fortunately, those that have read his works or learnt of CODIT second-hand get the important point that trees deal with wounding damage by hampering the spread of resultant decay/dessication/drying/wetting/dysfunction (walls 1 to 3) until they can effect a permanent repair by occluding the wound (wall 4). Hopefully that's the way this Beech will go, but the race is on. What I have always been a little unclear on , despite woute a few Shigoesque dissections I have made across partial occlusions of infected wounds is the extent to which the action of a fungus like P. squamosus will interfere with the occlusion. That is to say, in a straight race the occlusion should be complete before the fungus has done critical biomechanical damage, but if the fungus is also letting the tree's tyres down to get a head-start, it must become a different race.

Oh well, you tried. Good luck on appeal, I believe the legislation, case law and official guidance are all on your side if (sorry, when) you put the case plainly. The weakest point might be whether the tree would be definitely unsafe after root removal, only you have examined the tree. I thought the Council hasn't even argued against that though, just that the driveway could be repaired.

I've missed a couple of days of the debate. I guess it wouldn't have mattered much. But just to clarify what I said before, I am not undercutting people every day, and never knowingly anyway, and maybe my business sense is not good enough to always do good work (which I always do) AND make a good profit (which I sometimes do) but sometimes if I see a couple of blank days in the diary coming up I will happily price a couple of jobs a little cheaper so that I am busy and at least bringing something in. The only difference between that and normal rates is I make enough to earn a groundy wage for the day and nothing going back in to the company for a rainy day. I don't have high fixed overheads so it doesnt matter too much. It is what I would be paying a groundy anyway, and he's not complaining about the rates. It woild be nice to be in a market where some of you guys are where you can afford to decide which customers you work for or which kind you look for. Meantime among all the hypothetical debate about keeping up industry rates to a fair level (whatever that is) and the state of the economy, here Objective One has been met (just about) which is we have a roof over our heads and shoes on our feet. I am providing for my family. The rest is, relatively speaking, hot air.

The prize goes to Mr Barton, it is indeed Quercus agrifolia. And that Zelkova must be Z. carpinifolia?

If you're going on your CS38, I'd say best advice is not to hit the ground, running or otherwise.

More specifically, COCIT up!

I will be sticking a few logs on to burn tonight, it is chilly, wet and breezy up in Glasgow area. 8 days adter midsummer. Got to underprice some Ash jobs soon to boost my stores for next winter which will probably be a long one and start in about a month's time.

I reckon that with what you have said, the true thing or process that is being compartmentalised is colonisation, whether it brings decay or dysfunction. It would have made for an interesting acronym for distal wall 1 compartmentalisation...

Now why didn't I think of that? I'll give you half of the fee I get for my advice on this one.

Fortunately I have low prperty overheads. I can do 2 guys and a truck for way less than £400, if I don't someone else will. Better to work for a fairly miserable takehome than sit at said home penniless and fume at the state of the market, lack of regulation, the number of cowboys etc. The state of the market is a reflection on vast oversupply of workers compared to 5 years ago and inability of most people who feel their skills are undervalued to switch to another trade, where competition is just as bad. Doing good work sorts the sheep from the lambs in the long-term. I can't do poor work if I try! My clients often get top quality for cowboy prices from me. Word soon gets around that you are good. And cheap. The latter is negotiable when you reach a new referral client. The former isn't.

Shigo, who coined the CODIT acronym, had D as Decay but in hindsight it could probably be applied more generally to Dysfunction.