daltontrees

I have been on the receiving end of this. "Reasonably accessible" doesn't have to mean free, nor does it have to mean available from the Council. Anyone (but usually conveyancers) can obtain land charges information for a fee from the Land Registry. I would expect a Council to reject such a request. I amn't aware of that case, I'll have a look.

There's a FoI exemption for "Information which is reasonably accessible to the applicant otherwise than" under an FoI request. So if land charges can be obtained by a conventional public process (free or otherwise), an FoI could be refused.

My local Council (South lanarkshire Council) has admitted it has no copies of its TPOs before 1996. They're all delineated in the Local Plan but no paperwork. An area of 1,800km2.

I just re-read the OP. The brick wall is on an old sandstone footing. That explains the lack orf resistanc eto movement of the wall and the legth of wall affected by the movement. I withdraw my suggestion fo a concrete beam. It's too late for that. It probably needs a lot of wall and footings removed, mini-piles inserted wherever possible between roots and a ground beam cast on top then rebuild wall. The LPA may well be in the compensation zone and the approval may partly be a refelction of that.

We could bring down the government by getting Trump to project manage the building of the wall...

I expect there are privacy and conservation area reasons for not doing the fence or railing solution which is in all other respects really the obvious choice. And perceived value of tree to its owners versus costs of solution. Removing the tree won't fix the wall, either, so there's possibly goung to be building work anyyway, and it's the extra cost of work due to retaining the tree that needs to go into the equation.

Interesting and useful experience, thanks

I am assuming he means a 'challenge' under s.288 of the validity of an Order on point of law.

Judicial Review?

I think the key is in detaching the defective foundation from the good foundation so that the former can move below ground and not affect the latter. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the foundation had failed there partly because it was thinner than normal, and was built like that because of existing roots and buttresses.

It looks like the crack starts below ground i.e. the foundation has failed. Expansion joints will only allow more movement, OK if it's seasonal movement that opens and closes, but no good if it's progressive. A solution in the short term is theoretically possible. However, it would involve cutting the broken section of foundation adrift from the good sections on either side. Remove section of wall racked down on either side, back a couple of feet on either side, cut down to the underside of the foundation but leave in place. Lay G8 or K9 lintel at just above ground level, but bedded only on section of wall that has remained in place, not on the cut-adrift section. Rebuild wall above it. Reduce to 1/2 brick thick for last couple of courses to buy a few years against contact by the stem. Even better, omit a course. Use a 50:50 portland:lime mortar, well plasticised, and it will give some flexibility. That's if the foundation has failed. it's basically a bridge across the closest section of tree. K9s are breathtakingly heavy. No tree will lift it purely by growth increments.

A few carvings I saw at the weekend for those who like that sort of thing

Strictly speaking, the purple-leaved variety of Myrobalan Plum is called Pissard's Plum Prunus cerasifera var Pissardi also known as Prunus cerasifera "Atropurpurea". The green-leaved Myrobalan seems to be less popular.

That's the best guess so far. The flowers are still emerging and look like they will be in clumps like Mulberry. Hop hornbeam flowers are of the dangly catkin kind and Davidia flowersa re the 'handkerchiefs' that give it it's common name. Right shape of juvenile leaf for Morus alba. Rosales anyway.

Aniother long and complicate Arbtalk speculation thread. Nothing wrong with that per se but what I'd do is wait until the application is determined and then decide either to give up or to appeal. A rubbed soffit is a long way below the £500 de minimis compensation threshold and a long time before the situation is serious. The compensation rights will expire long before then.

Well if it's n fault of their own, they shouldn't be having to replace it at all. Did they wilfully destroy or damage it? If not, no offence, no replacement requirement. Seeing it from LA side, doing a CAVAT or Helliwell valuation might give £300 for a 14-16 and £3,000 for a 45-60. That's value, not cost. Which is meant to be a measure of amenity contribution. Maybe LA isn't thinking about cost at all. I don't sense any punishment motive. But as I say, no offence, no replacement. Initially you said trees 'were removed' but now it's tha they were vandalised. And replacement is being asked for. You could say no and offer a 14-16, explaining that no liability is accepted for the loss (vandalism) and that a semi mature is prohibitively expensive. Put teh offer in writing 'without prejudice' and see if the LA has the temerity to prosecute instead. Smaller trees estabilsh better anyway. Personally I have had very few scrapes with LAs (in Scotland the Councils don't give enough of a damn about trees to prosecute anyway) but 14-16 is as much as I've been asked for. I'm involved in a negotiated removal of 7 or 8 publicly visible early mature Sycamores and the Council is happy with heavy standards.

Fair enough, I misread the post and thought it said Oak. DOH! Expanding foam is a good option.

Surely the goal is to replace lost tree amenity as soon as possible? If so, the largest tree possible should be put in. I don't see where the 'punishment' aspect comes in to it. Are you assuming Councils ask for larger more expensive trees as a punishment? The legislation has appropriate measures for that. Tree replacement is a different thing. I have no position on this, I just amn't persuaded.

My guess is Inonotus dryadeus

Folks might find this (attachment) useful as a first way of identifying 2 needle pines by needle length. Pine needle lengths.pdf

Paul, apologies for not replying, I've not been on Arbtalk a lot recently. I'm no expert on this compensation business, but some basic principles would apply. As said before the tree would have to be TPO'd. And then there would have to be an application for its removal, citing damage so that the case can be made afterwards for foreseeable damage. So one could say that although the wall is leaning, its salvageable but if nothing esle is done it will fall over because of the tree. The measure of damage would start with the cost of rebuilding the wall. It might be safe to say it's slightly more expensive to rebuild to accommodate the tree (say, with a ground beam). It woudl just be a matter of dispute threafter how much of the cost would be payable in damage. Negotiations would take place in the shadow of a Lands Tribunal application by either party. So the approach to valuation should be adopted that the Tribunal would use. Past experience tells me they don't just find in favour of one party of the other, it's more likely to be a partial award. The Tribunal seems to be persuaded more by actual costs incurred than by estimates, becuase it shows genuine intent to reinstate the wall and it removes cost-uncertainty. After all. getting £6k to rebuild a brick wall then spending £1k on a fence instead is not 'equivalence'. I'd say it's a matter of degree, then, a % of rebuild costs, based on how much damage was already done before the compensation application (not compensatable) and how much afterwards. It shouldn't be necessary to wait for the wall to fall over if someone with an engineering background could certify that its removal was necessary because of foreseeable harm. My only big case in Tribunal, for a Coucil I offered £50k and the claimant wanted £125k. The Tribunal awarded £69k but because of procedural errors on the Council's part the claimant was awarded costs too (of £9k mainly legal fees). It's a typical Tribunal horse deal with no certainty on either side. So in conclusion I don't think the extra rebuild cost is a factor, it would jut be a higher figure for the % apportionment to be based on.

Compensation would not be a good way to go, since it only comes into effect after refusal, and the damage is already done, i.e. cannot retrospectively claim. Also the damage was mostly done when the tree was not TPO'd.

What has Arbtalk come to, when every tree indent for the last 5 years has triggered a suggestion of 'Hornbeam', then one finally turns up no-one says it. I am almost disappointed. Is Nothofagus the new Hornbeam? Assuming it's not Ostrya...

Funny, I would have said Kuma-Shide (Carpinus japonica) or Hop Hornbeam, pref the former. I don't know anything else that has that many sunken parallel veins and fat buds.. But I'm still going to get that ID book.

Sounds like the other Councils are habitually doing it wrong, so now you have encountered one that is doing it right it seems wrong. Best give them a proper spec, because if the Council has to TPO the trees because of inadequate spec, customer will quite rightly be extremely pissed off with you.