daltontrees

It's probably an uncomfortable truth for TOs. Dr. Mynors advocates the idea that the TPO exemptions such as nuisance abatement are necessary to avoid a tree owner being in a situation where he is in negligence at common law but cannot remedy it because of a TPO. That is intuitively correct and in a civilised society cannot be any other way.

Well since we're being blunt, I have to say that you are wrong. But don't take my word for it, the law was stated in modern terms by the Master of the Rolls in 2018 in Network Rail v Willians and Waistell. "... although nuisance is sometimes broken down into different categories, these are merely examples of a violation of property rights as I have described them. In Hunter at 695C, for example, Lord Lloyd said that nuisances are of three kinds: (1) nuisance by encroachment on a neighbour’s land, (2) nuisance by direct physical injury to a neighbour’s land; and (3) nuisance by interference with a neighbour’s quiet enjoyment of his land. The difficulty with any rigid categorisation is that it may not easily accommodate possible examples of nuisance in new social conditions or may undermine a proper analysis of factual situations which have aspects of more than one category but do not fall squarely within any one category, having regard to existing case law." "... the frequently stated proposition that damage is always an essential requirement of the cause of action for nuisance because nuisance is derived from the old form of action on the case must be treated with considerable caution. As to the proposition, see, for example, Lemmon v Webb [1894] 3 Ch 1, 11, 21, 24; Davey v Harrow Corporation [1958] 1 QB 60, 71; Hunter at 695D; and Delaware Mansions Ltd v Westminster City Council [2001] UKHL 55, [2002] 1 AC 321, [15] and [33]. It is clear both that this proposition is not entirely correct and also that the concept of damage in this context is a highly elastic one." "It is also well established that, in the case of nuisance through interference with the amenity of the claimant’s land, physical damage is not necessary to complete the cause of action.". and later in the written judgement... "Provided, by reference to all the circumstances of the case and the character of the locality, and according to the objective standards of the average person, the interference with amenity is sufficiently serious, there will be an actionable private nuisance." Or, in short, nuisance is not damage, it's interference with property rights. One of those rights is light. Another is the right not to have your property damaged. Break free of the tyrranical misconception created by Lemmon v Webb and driven into the head of every arb student. There does NOT need to be damage for an action in nuisance to succeed. And so, if it's actionable, it can be done under exemption in a CA or TPO situation. It's not me that's right, it's the Master of the Rolls and he's the highest civil law authority in the commonwealth. There's even a reported case in the Court of Session in 1781 where nuisance by light blockage was actionable. One more time - There does NOT need to be damage for an action in nuisance to succeed. It's the law.

There's a superficial similarity between Cercis and Cercidiphyllum. But as the name of the latter suggests it has two (di) leaves(phyllum). Your picture has diretly opposite pairs, as with Cercidiphyllum. If you ever see a Cercis you'll appreciate that the leaves are alternate (left-right-left) on the twig.

I have an article from 1888 where the author (Gregory) fished about for any other name having been attributed to these, and she ends up after 12 pages calling them 'cork-wings'.

Sorry ot pop your bubble, man. Cones are way too big for Lawsons, but it's got the right hingy look of one.

Yes it's definitely a scabby conifer. It might be 'weeping' partly as a consequence of the weight of cones. My guess based on cone size relative to scales would be a Nootka. I no longer care whether it's Xanthocyparis, Chamaecyparis, Cupressus, Cupressocyparis. Should be all lumped together in a new genus Scabbyconiferus.

I am sending you the 1993 article just now. I have seen reference to verious other Mattheck article years, some in german and none of which I have. Do you mean Mattheck 2006 "Shear effects on failure of hollow trees." Trees, 20, 329-333.? There's also a 2008 article by Gruber which I am sending too because it sets out quite tetchily I think to refute the t/R 0.3 'rule'. If youy turned up the 2006 article do let me know please.

i have the original article in the office if i remember to send it. feel free to remind ne

Also, hopefully, a guard against people being hurt. The assessment isn't nearly as important as sharing the discussion and findings with site staff. Proof of that is paramount.

I've haad a weak anke since I was 16, goes over regularly. I have developed areflex action that involves me dropping to the ground instantly when it happens, which saves me damaging it but gets some fully looks in Tesco. The elasticy white stuff is totally the best. Hot tips are to shave your ankle regularly and only put one strip vertically right round the bottom of the foot from ankle to ankle (like a stirrup) and one around the ankle on top of it to hold the vertical one in place.

done

There is a common rule of thumb in daylighting calculations called the 25 degree rule. It is derived from the British Standard for internal daylighting BS8206-2, essentially it means that if the vertical angle between the mid point of any window facing a solid continuous obstacle to light and the top of the object would be greater than 25 degrees the internal daylighting may be below the minimum standard, and a more detailed analysis would be required. I'll not get into the detail of it, but that's the basic 'rule'. I dont know where the 38 degrees came from. Hopefully it's clear that the further way the window is, the smaller the angle becomes for any fixed height of obstacle. It would be possible (and I would say it should always be the case) that the mature rather than current height of the trees that are being treated as the obstacle could be used. If so, this would give a distance which could be insetted into the angle calculation in reverse to give a current equivalent angle for the current height of the trees. If so, it would be much much better just to state the distance. So, ATan 22/28 = 38 degrees. The rule if it is being used in this way would only work on level ground and only if the trees are of uniform height for most of the panorama left and right of the window positions. Plus if the height of window has been ignored the buildings could in teory be almost 2 metres closer to the trees. Plus account needs to be taken of the window design, room sizeds and most importantly room uses. Kitchens require twice the daylight of bedrooms. Living rooms are half way inbetween. It's possible to do a full analysis using measured and calculatee Vertical Sky Components and Average Daylighting Factors for rooms. It's time-consuming, though. Rules are no good if the rationale and limitations behind them is not understood so that the user knows when the rule cannot be safely used.

Thuja are elongate, Lawsons spherical.

Removal of branches from a TPO'd tree because of light blockage can in some circumstances be lawful without consent, but the light blockage would need to be really quite bad, constituting an 'actionable nuisance'.

I beg to differ with the majority of replies here. An increment borer can be used to determine the age of many trees quite precisely but needs to be used correctly and the results need to be extrapolated, which can be done with an excel spreadsheet. Let me know if you want to know more or see an example of the method in use. PM prefereably so that I don't have to worry about copyright.

Have a look on Google at what Thuja cones look like and you'll never mistake it for Lawsons again. This one is a Lawsons. Final answer.

1. Sounds trivial. Time will tell, but measured in years. 2. Nothing specific can be done but anything that's good for the whole tree will be good for the roots. Mulching's nearly always good.

Aye well let us know how you get on with that. Or not. I didn't even know there was a version 1.

I very much agree with the last point. And the point I am trying to make about ERC is that life expectancy means nothing really because a tree can be destroyed to a stump and bounce right back for another 40+ years but for BS5837 I think it's fair to say that it's the visual amenity (contribution) it makes that matters. If we pick though the detailed criteria for the various retention categories there's no room for valuing deadwood and other ecological features unless they are of heritage value. There's no place for risk in BS categorisation. There's a separate thread right there.

Ahh you beat me to it. Apparently Mike Ellison of QTRA fame and nothing but a hammer and some dude with an expensive toybox went head to head predicting the state of decay inside a tree, which was then cut down. I believe MIke Ellison's prediction was as good as the whizz-kid's.

No-one I know has a Shigometer. Or a Factometer. I know of 3 Sonic Tomographs and a few resistographs. But be warned, they may give the illusion of scoientific rigour but if not used and then interpreted with considerable skill the results will be somewhere between useless and dangerously misleading. And bloody expensive. An important question is whther the law of negligence could ever require an tree owner to go to this expense. I suspect the answer is no. If you suspect a defect you should follow it up but that doesn't mean gadgets. A decent ear and a sounding hammer is usually enough to build up a picture of the inside of a decaying tree. I have an increment borer that I use only to prove what I already know. If you ever get a chance, sound a hollowing tree before it is felled, sketch the results with depths of decay and sound wood and cavity shape, then when the tree is cut down check if you were right. Adjust judgement and repeat as often as possible. My hot tip is never ever to use the term life expectancy in a report. Safe Useful Life Expectancy is much better, or for BS5837 surveys use Expected Remaining Contribution.

I'm not sure about copyright and where I got it form so I'll send it to you by PM. For private study only.

I'll summarise the law for you. When considering what you are about to do or not bother doing, think first about whether it is going to badly affect someone else. If you can see that it is and you wouldn't want someone to do the same to you, you're probably in the wrong. There, who needs courts?

The generality of that is true, although I don't see how you can tell the prevailing wind direction from the pics. But it's a tiny tree, can't be much in the way of risk or lever arm. These decisions should always be situation-specific. Generally I am in the 'leave the poor bloody tree alone' camp. Reducing height redistributes growth hormones, can result in overextension of limbs and longer term problems. Especially if there are other inclusion forks.

Published research is that roots can't crush and break pipes. They may be present alongside pipes if root penetration in the trenchfill is easier than adjacent ground. But they still shouldn't be growing preferentially beside a pipe unless it is leaking and giving them a steady supply of water and (erm) nutrients. I had to research and report last year on the resistance of a pipe to crushing by roots in contact with it. The strength of a circular intact pipe is phenomenal, much greater than the pressure exerted by roots in contact. And if the root contact was right on a joint? I think the fill material around the joint would need to be very loose for displacement to take place. But I suppose it would be possible for very short sections of pipe with filled joints (not push-fit modern ones.