daltontrees

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.

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.

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.

What country are you in? The answer depends partly on this.

I wouldn't say 'observation of the content', I only read the punchline. I'll read it later too.

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.

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.

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.

I'd be interested in seeing that.

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?

Yeah, don't use the one your wife keeps for cleaning her jewellery ?

I can't find any official source that says that this proposed ban is going to go ahead. H. along with Phil Hammond?

Agreed on the first point. See what a shit and misleading system it is? I have no view on the second points.

I'll tell you the point. You are incorrectly using the word 'majority'. It doesn't mean 'the most of'. It's not an argument, it's a matter of the correct use of words. In the example you put, the correct answer is indeed no-one, not because I would argue it but because it's factually correct. Your rhetoric would be clearer to follow if you don't mix up majority of votes with majority of seats. And FPTP is an analogy that only works for the constituency votes. In parliament government comes from most past the post i.e most of the first past the posts. Positively primitive, in my opinion, as it gives two linked opportunities to alienate large parts of society. Anyway, some people care. When the new scottish parliament had the opportunity to design a system form scratch it introduced a system that is more inclusive. Because enough people cared.

Bizarre! How about a system that doesn't let any one party fuck things up? Better, no? Instead of government policy lurching from one side to the other. It shouldn't be series of partisan experiments.

Whatever I think of Big J's politics, I'd say the views are not at all chaotic and, far from being impossible to follow, are clear and well argued. I think you are consistently and repeatedly missing the point. The tories got more votes than anyone else, but that's not a majority of votes. Majority means more than 50%. The current system does nothing for the 55% (the majority) of voters who did not vote for the tories. It is impossible for FPTP not to result in constant resentment unless the majority is almost unanimous.

Maybe in the Land of the Giants!

I have this in my garden and know it well, it's not teh same as the OP's.

Sorry, I've got it out of my system now and, since I can do precisely f&%$ all to influence things, I can wait.

Yes there's an income band about £6,000 wide where the english and scottish rates are different. And the higher rate is paid only on the part of income in that band. I stand corrected.

Well, just looked, and tax does go to scottish government.

I am anti 'first past the post', not pro independence. It can never achieve societal harmony. And that includes in an independence referendum. And Brexit. I didn't know tax went straight to the scottish parliament, I thought it went to the UK government based on UK tax legislation and the UK parliament decided what goes to Scotland. Could be wrong, though. I just pay it. I'm not in any higher bracket.

I know. That's why I clarified it....

A glance at the map of votes is going to explain that where you are there is a strong tory leaning and where I am is strong SNP. That cna explain why we are gauging different opinions. I don't see point in debating the pros and cons of independence and EU with you, as you seem to be strongly partisan. Even though I didn't say I was pro-independence you have assumed I am. Your comment about my relative, is trite. He was a professor at the leading economic institution in Scotland, and spent a lifetime being paid by industry to advise them on strategic direction and specifics. That counts as 'doing'. Also you are perhaps suggesting that those who don't teach, 'can', which is patently untrue. The original question in this post, which no-one really addressed, was whether only scots should vote on independence. I tried to answer it in a very specific way, relating to the economic rationale for England keeping Scotland. We are constantly told that England supports Scotland financially . If the English poplation could vote confidentially and were told that England supports Scotland to the tune of £4,000 per capita or whatever the figure is, I think they'd say drop Scotland. Despite what you say, I didn't express certainty, but I'd certainly bet on it. We can agree to disagree, as we may never get to find out, and it is futile to argue about politics on the internet with strangers, it never changes anyone's opinion and only neds with someone misinterpreting or pouncing on minutiae.

I'm not advocating it, I am saying that I gauge support for it.