daltontrees

All noted. Nothing is ever completely clear, But I would invite anyone to subject themselves to this little test. Say in Kevins scenario, there are two parties A and B owning each half of a plantation. You are the consultant appointed by A to advise on harvesting. You know that harvesting will probably result in windthrow of some of B's trees. B is asked if he wants to harvest simultaneously, but he definitively does not in the foreseeable future. Question 1 - Do you advise A that (a) he must forget about harvesting and should only do it when B wants to too (b) he should harvest but must expect to compensate B for any windthrown trees and/or be up in court on a civil action of negligence © he should harvest, and give B plenty of warning that it might result in some windthrow? Question 2 - regardless of which of these options you choose to advise A, A questions the advice an asks how you arrived at it. Do you say (a) I don't know, only the courts will tell if I am right (b) I don't know, take legal advice or © this is a commonplace enough scenario for me to be confident in my advice to you? I'm a (c,c) man, and my clients so far like my decisive and firm advice. It may, of course, be wrong. On a less day-to-day basis, I was musing today that windthrow of a neighbour's trees is the action of the wind, not of the landowner who decides to fell. Now, if A stored up all the wind on his land and released it all at once to flatten B's trees, that would be wrong. But he is only allowing the wind to pass from another's airspace, through his airspace, and onto B's airspace. This is not a Rylands v Fletcher type of failure to contain something on land or the carelessness of Goldman v Hargreaves. Nor is it a legal instead of literal neighbour relationship of Donoghue v Stevenson. I cannot see that society's need for workable jurisprudence would be served by preventing a man from using his land for the very purpose it is devoted to, viz forestry. This to me is even clearer cut (no pun intended) than the root pruning scenario. We all have as you say rights and responsibilities, but B has not acquired the right to force A to contain the wind. One canute do that, and I believe the law knows it. The 'green strips' course of action would have to have been taken when the trees were very young, as it is the very objective of forestry to grow tall branch-free trees in the full knowledge that they wouldn't grow like that in nature and survive.

We all went over this recently in a thread, and what the outcome wst as I recall was that you believed this, but neither you nor anyone else who was sympathetic your view had any response to the impossible logical and legal cosequences of it. Or put it another way, if push came to shove I still say the law cannot support your believed position. The scenario was about root pruning, but this current scenario has the same underlying principle namely - the remaining tree owner has not acquired over time by statute, common law or prescription a legally enforceable right of companion shelter from the owner of the now felled trees. And like our root pruning scenario, the preposterous consequences of any such acquired right would be to prevent one owner felling his trees because he felt he had to shelter his neighbour's trees. As Peasgood says, if there was a right of shelter maybe the tree owner owes something for all those years of shelter. But of course he doesn't, it's a legally preposterous construct. Gary Prentice's roof blowing off scenario illustrates this. And so flatyre and everyone else can rest easy every time a tree is removed or pruned (or a building demolished or a fence removed), and then a branch snaps or a tile comes off a roof on adjacent land. The world would grind to a standstill if there was express or implied prescriptive rights of shelter. I believe the guy who has felled his trees had every right to do so, even if he knew the consequences would be increased chance of windthrow of the neighbouring trees. And unlike the root pruning scenario, he possibly didn't even have a duty to warn. One doesn't have to pick up Mynors, it is common sense and common law, the two are one here. There may be forestry legislation exceptions, but they would be exceptions rather than reinforcement of common law. I know of no such exceptions. In these scenarios, Spruce Pirate's 'green strips' are the answer, and ideally separate harvesting dates could have been anticipated and a gap left on the boundary to develop windfirm edges. I am sorry to be so blunt, but I feel duty-bound to offer this alternative to your belief. But just to be clear, even though I have been on Arbtalk for 5 years it doesn't mean that I now owe a prescriptive duty of care to other Arbtalkers.

It's on a neighbour's, but his actions may have made it less stable. He is worried it might fall on his own house.

Good, I hope they're squirming or even better resigning.

My cambium saver is two fixed rings. I am saving up for a new rope so I don't want to get a different cambium saver. My new rope will have a spliced or preferably sewn eye.

I prefer a knot that's almost impossible to untie (accidentally).

I would only agree with that if the contractor had undertaken to check that there were no legal impediments to felling a tree. Otherwise it is not the sort of thing a contractor should be expected to do or even warn about in the normal course of events. As ever, it is best for the customer to know whether or not the contractor is checking. At least that way he knows if he has to check himself. It is perfectly acceptable to tell the customer that you are not checking and that he ought to. Or pay you to do it (add it to the price of the job) and bear the associated delay while the LPA does or doesn't answer. Up here, expecting the Council to have htat sort of info to hand is cloud cuckooland. I have been waiting 3 months now for my last request of that kind to be answered. The tree was removed 2 months ago.

I accidentally damaged the spliced eye end of my long rope last year, and had to remove it. Since then I have been using it with a double figure of 8. If anything it is better as it works as a bit of weight for throwing over forks. The downside is I can't use my cambium saver, and it can get stuck in tight forks when retrieving it and if there is any dangerr of that I pull it through from the other end. I don't know how it would stand up to a LOLER inspection though, but that shouldn't bother you.

Put them in in line with the top of the gob. Won't spoil as much timber as splitting the whole stem up the middle.

Planning Agreements (s.106 or scottish equivalent) must turn up in an ownership deed, and the purchaser's solicitor should bring it to a new owner's attention (before the purchase is concluded). But ordinary planning conditions, no chance of these turning up unless the purchase offer specifies that any planning conditions should be disclosed by the seller. Implications would therefore depend on what the seller, solicitor or purchaser knew and didn't say. Your scenario is a perfect example of why planning conditions of an ongoing nature shouldn't be used to protect trees.

Nice example Gary of Arbland legislation not applying to Scotland We have Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 s.75. and just as importantly Circular 3/2012.

Anyone in the Republic able to give me a starter for 10 on this one? I have a friend just started building on a plot in Donegal, he has a problem with a tree, both in terms of risk and closeness to the building. I am going to be over there next week anyway and he has seized the opportunity to ask me if I'll do an urgent report on the tree. Can anyone tell me if BS5837 is generally used over there (or if not, what is), and whether there is any difference between tree law (risk/negligence/duty of care etc.) there and here? Any advice appreciated.

The idea is to put them above the backcut so that the hinge comprises only heartwood/ripewood. utting them below the back cut will not have that effect, or not so completely anyway.

If you are still following this thread ... You could be wasting your money. A couple of trees shading part of a garden for part of the day does not constitute grounds for a High Hedge Notice. If they shade and shadow a large part of the garden for a large part of the day and fall within the statutory definition of a High Hedge, then you might succeed in getting them partly reduced in height. I strongly recommend you take some basic measurements of your garden (depth and width) and the hedge (estimating the height will do) and sit down with a copy of Hedge Height and Light Loss. This is a freely available public document and you should be able to get a complementary excel spreadsheet with it. Plug in your numbers and see what height the hedge should be for its dimensions and thegarden's dimensions. If it's less than the current height, it may be worth spending £500. But even if it is, you should present the evidence to the hedge owner and try first and seek agreement to have it reduced. There's no need for solicitors.

OK. The reason I asked where it is that 99% of what goes on here on Arbtalk seems to follow England and english tree law. In Scotland the law is substantially the same but there are some subtle and some not so subtle differences in law and government policy and appeals procedures and so forth. Worth noting if the advice you are proposing to give is anything but broad-brush, as a well designed strategy based on Arbland law can sometimes unravel in Scotland.

Excellent! Made my evening that did.

Anyone interested should read what was recorded about the meeting. https://bristoltreeforum.org/2017/07/05/bristol-trees-in-crisis-notes-of-04-july-public-meeting/ I see a representative of the Sheffield debacle was present. Personally I would conclude that the Council's decision is short-sighted, irresponsible and ill-informed. But councilllors who vote omn budgets may not be there in 3 or 5 or 7 years when weak pollard attachments fall on cars and people, when epicormics hide the sudden failure of trees form Kretzschmaria and when retrospective claims for subsidence start coming in. I only hope for the sake of the Council that it has consulted with its risk managers (insurers) before making this decision. It's premia must go up, and since insurers are not in the business of making losses or insuring just for fun, the premia should go up be more than the cost of claims. I think the real misery, though, is going to be for residents whose gardens and houses could be plunged into darkness by unpollarded trees. Since this is not a 'nuisance' that they can do anything about except pay for repollarding themselves, I can see why this sad decision might be justified by the Council. Don't use public money when you can make neighbours so desperate for basic light that they pay for tree works themselves. I hope the first claim against the Council is for damage to an inanimate object rather than a person, and it would be nice if the decision makers were found responsible for failing to take professional advice on the implications. I've never been in Bristol in my life, but I still find this decision and the way it has been taken really pathetic. The industry knows by now what is right and wrong in urban tree management, but the bean counters always override it. Just another symptom of society in the UK.

Bristol Tree Forum website says "We are a group of volunteers dedicated to increasing the tree canopy cover of Bristol." At least they're going to get that.

Yes but not as clear as if you had answered the rest of the questions. Otherwise, like everyone else will probably conclude, I'd say there seems to be no reason why the tree can't just be removed, if that's what the owner wants.

Bunny ears are what you get if you don't put cuts in below the hinge on leaners. I never thought to give the cuts a special name.

I agree whith others saying that more information is needed. I definitely wouldn't agree with some of the advice you have received here. At best unhelpful, at worst recklessly ill-informed. Is there TPO? Is the tree in a Conservation Area? Has an application or notification been submitted formally asking to be allowed to work on the tree? If so, has it been refused? When? How big is the tree and what species? Were engineering allowances made for its presence in the design and build of the extension? If not, why not? Were they followed? If not why not, and who decided not to? Are there conditions in a consent for the extension relating to the tree? Where in the country is it? Those are just some of the preliminary questions.

I'm sworn to th BK range of varnishes which come in range of fluorescent luminous colours, creating a useful hi-viz effect that lets you know where the ends of your arms are at all times. Saved many a finger, it has.

My first reaction to this thread was that it would diminish the art form, but if it's for selling nicknacks to leisure shoppers in garden centres, then frankly it doesn't matter what tools or machines are used. What I think would be really naff would be programming a computer to deliberately carve things to look like they have been done with a chainsaw. That's close to cheating customers. I have been most impresed by chainsaw carving when it has been in-situ on a stump or stem, ideally using the natural form and grain imaginatively. I don't think anything will replace that, these seem to be one-offs and peple seem to be happy to pay a premium for their unique artistic worth. Mass produced mobile pieces and wooden boxes might be Ford Fiestas, but the car analogy cannot be used for the one-off in-situ sculpture. If anything it's like getting a personally customised car built for you in your home using your own materials, and quite rightly that will be expensive and special. Meantime if anyone can part consumers from their cash down the garden centre, as far as I am concerned computer-made wooden things can sit on display right alongside the garden gnomes and plastic planters.

That was my standby question...