daltontrees

If that failure wasn't foreseeable, I don't know what would be. I can see why the neighbour might want to be paying.

Sounds like the way to do it. I did one like this once and pretty much did what you suggest and it was fine. I remember tying in to the hung up tree for a couple of cuts but using a loop of hessian rope so that if it went the loop would rip out and I'd still be anchored from above in the other tree. The biggest danger is the whole tree rolling as you nibble away at the crown, but once you get up there the support points will be obvious and everything else can go.

I did the training last year. Mike Ellison himself delivered it. It was very intensive but clear, and included a session outside applying the system to real trees and just as impoirtantly to real places and real people and roads and cars. I has already been using my own quantified system and so I already understood the really important point that making realistic and proportionate recommendations about tree risk is only in small part about the tree, it's really about harm and damage and cost. But the training allowed me to refine my approach to recording and assessing situations. The training was well worth the money, but I sure wish it had been a bit closer to Scotland as it took a lot of time and money to get there and back including an overnight stay.

Acer, are you the spokesman for QTRA, I can never tell if you are officially speaking on its behalf with the authorisation of QTRA, asn int eh past yo hav esaid you have no connection to it? My client wasn't after my improved version, but at interview it realised that my adaptations of it took it from an adequate service to one that did exactly what it needs. That is I think why I won the contract in direct competiotion wiht another QTRA user, QTRA in isolation wasn't going to deliver. The client knows how and why I have amended it and approves. It is still QTRA but it is QTRA+. I'm not ging to sit around and wait for QTRA to take upo improvements I suggest, or even let it plunder them for commercial benefit. I can do that myself, thankyou. I'll share them if and when I see fit.

I had just this problem today. After ploughing through a sand-laden compression fork, the chain and groove was mega sloppy. The rails were roughly even height but they had become worn on the insides especially closest to the chain. No amount of pinching the bar closed would have helped, so I bit the bullet and filed a whole lot off the entire bar length. In a vice with a good flat file, took 10 minutes. Almost a millimetre, I'd guess. eventually a square corner was achieved. I refitted chain and tried it and it cut as well as ever.

I found this reference on Google. Private nuisance, as defined in Bamford v Turnley 1860, amounts to “any continuous activity or state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a [claimant's] land or his use or enjoyment of that land.” So in this case the branches are a continuous state of affairs, but I can't see how they are a substantial or unreasonable interference with the use of the land. It is so important to remember that nuisance, as used in the Tree Regs, is not in its common sense but in the legal sense, such as given in the abovementioned case. And the use of the exemption is only to the extent required to abate the nuisance, not to eliminate all encroachment. And inevitably the word 'actionable' has to be examined. It carries with it the principle that the wrong must be creating actual and measurable damage or loss of enjoyment. The Tree Regs don't say 'for the ... abatement of an actionable nuisance' they just say 'for the ... abatement of a nuisance'. But I think it was clear from Perrin that the nuisance has to be significant to the extent of being actionable. If it was truly Parliament's intention through the exemptions to make sure TPOs don't cause someone to be in a situation of being unable to abate a nuisance that otherwise would find him on the losing end of an action for nuisance, then that's entirely appropriate. And that's what I'm going with for now. Should Gary's client, rather than getting a deliberate TPO application knockback, serve 5 day notice on the Council of his intention to abate a nuisance? Well, I see an important point here, the Council that receives a 5 day notice and doesn't prevent the work is not condoning it. The 5 days may be provided only to allow the Council to visit and take evidence of the condition of the tree. The Council's failure to stop the work is not, in my current thinking. proof that the nuisance is actionable. How could it be since the Council may not be party whatsoever to the preceding exchanges between landowners and such evidence as there might be that there is measurable loss. They can't know if it's actionable, at least not quickly enough to stop the work. Do they even have the legal authority to stop it? I don't think they do. The course of action would be to prosecute for abuse of the exemption. Like Gary, I don't know what the penalty for that is, but I guess it's akin to or the same as unauthorised work to a TPO'd tree. I am pretty sure the courts are satisfied that tree owners do not have to anticipate and prevent actionable nuisance (except subsidence cases, which are deemed negligent because foreseeable, the question of measurable damage being self evident). Nuisance is after all in the eye of the beholder. I am baling out in case I have to look through Perrin again, which I never want to have to do.

Hurrah!

You and Kevin, you are prone to prod my doubts sometimes, but for once I am going to resist spending 20 frantic minutes re-reaidng case law, and shaking Mynors (the book, not the person) by the spine in the hope that some new perspective on this will fall out and land at my feet. If Perrin v Northampton taught the world and us anything it was that we probably can't take anything for granted in tree law. A good, (or even a bad) night's sleep will improve my perspective, and maybe the tree law elves will put together a perfect answer overnight and leave it for us to find in the morning?

Doubt if this is 'wilful damage', as the Act says. But it's always a factor that TPO'd trees are protected in their entirety even roots under neighbour's land and gradual damage could be bad for a tree. But gradual compaction or pre-compaction would reslult in less roots in the parking area anyway.

Where I was brought up 'crowning' was a form of GBH administered to the cranium witha big stick, and topping meant and still means a 100% vitality reduction. These guys sould like hooligans. I'd probably want 14 days to rethink the services they are offering and had sold me on the doorstep. Or after breaking my back door down, saying Big Ern sent them to 'collect'. Hopefully it's somethign less sinsiter than that, such as the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.

I have an update on this once I get some pictures uploaded. The answer is that both Sorbus and Prunus produce buds exactly like this. So everyone's right, hurrah!

Just remembered Matheny & Clark's ssytem was examined in the Kew case.

Gary, here's an idea. Put in a TPO application to remove all the overhanging branches. State (as you must in a TPO app) the reason and that you foresee dmage to the camper van. Give the reason as preventing damage to neighbour's vehicle. Inevitably, after Council stops laughing and reads between the lines, you will get a refusal. Any sunbsequent damage that was foreseeable the Council compensates for. Any that isn't is a perfect defence against negligence. Any miniscule claim will be thrown out of court as de minimus if nothing else. And the costs of court will be borne by the neighbour. Mr Camper van can then direct his irrational rage at the Council and the courts. In effect the TPO is convenient to your client in this case because it takes the decision to butcher the tree out of his hands.

Ahh I think I have figured it out.

I use a system of finda nd replace when I get back to teh office, so my abbreviations have to be letter compinations that aren't found in any other words. So that one is "Well buttressed, dense basal epicormics to the west. Reasonable intact upright stem, compression fork cluster with included bark at 2m, reasonably balanced crown largely defect-free with isolated small diameter deadwood." Good value.

No-one gets as excited as you do about small rubbery protrusions on trees. It's nice to be able to tell one small rubbery protrusion from another, but these 3 candidates all say the same thing to me in a practical sense. That's what I meant. I'm not forgiven, am I?

I don't want to bring down QTRA, I'd like to improve it, and a certain proponent of it (not M.E.) makes it hard to like and I just ... can't .... stop ... MYSELF!

Hey, I know the feeling. I described a tree the other day as "wxb, dbe wz, ruis, cfc wib at 2m rbc ldf with isolated sdd."

Initially while steaming at the Conference dinner. By email, at the QTRA course, on the QTRA users forum. But I've assured him of confidentiality, so that's that. I can't comment on UKTC except to say that from what I know of you you might not get much extra from it. I find it quite TO-centric, but there are some brilliant minds on it who occasionally take the time to tell it the way it is.

Just remembered, David Lonsdale's stated preferred approach to tree risk assessemnt is QTRA. Gotta count for something. And Jeremy Barrell pilloried QTRA at the Exeter conference. Gotta count for something. Erm.....

All good, all good. Yes it is so important to be thorough and keep good records for each tree and VTA is a good solid basis for that. I'd say that to do risk assessments, whether by QTRA or TRAQ or THREATS or any defensible system you probably need to have knwoledge and experience of trees and tree inspection, plus a core qualification of some kind, plus a good working knowledge of VTA, plus the PTI ticket and, as far as systems go, a pass or registration in the system. My comments on all those cases was really that the courts aren't fussed about systems, and have noted that parties have to a greater or lesser extent had adequate systems in place, wherher it is Gomples kicking the tree now and again, the lady inthe Stage coanch noting the tree was in full leaf, and in Bowen there was acknowledgement of the tolerance of hazards in poorly frequented locatiions, and in Poll I think there was adoption of the zoning principle. The more I know sometimes it seems the less I understand....

Mike ellison, owner of QTRA. If 10 Bears could see the frank opinions I express to "M.E." I think he'd reassess whether I have slipped into the clutches of the dark side. The grief I get from the QTRA folk is that I try and adapt QTRA, partly as improvements and partly as customisation, and you'd think I was trying to drive on the wrong side of the road. Not M.E., mind, he's circumspect.

Pretty much all the same stuff, they canbe hard to pin down when dessicated.

I'm fairly ambivalent about QTRA, and I am currently doing a big big survey contract which I won only because I got QTRA registered to win it. If I hadn't got registered I would have been wasting time bidding. QTRA cients know what they want, and in my experience non-QRTA clients are not so clear on what they want. Horses for courses. But I think it is wrong to see VTA as a substitute for QTRA or TRAQ or any tree risk assessment system. Whether you agree with QTRA or not there is little room left for doubt that the law supports the view that a duty-holders obligation to obviate foreseeable risk is a combination of hazard assessment (VTA does this) and the likelihood of someone or something being there to be harmed or damaged, and the severity of harm or damage that could be caused. VTA on its own cannot possibly address duty of care. Burns v Goodside was an australian planning appeal decision and has no weight in law in the UK. It wasn't even a legal case. If you want to examine the use of a system that has been scrutinised in legal cases, there's the recent Kew case, there's Bowen, there's Mickelwright, there's Aitken, there's even Smith v Gompels and the recent Stagecoach. These to me are more telling of what the courts deem appropriate than any dissection of proprietary systems. What they seem to say again and again is that it's not about trees or even about the likelihood of failure, it's about foreseeable significant harm. I don't think that surveying trees is the answer, I think that that is about a third of the solution, and that assessing risks and taking proportionate precautions is the real agenda. I'd better go now in case the QTRA people think they have bought my soul. QTRA has shortcomings but they are nothing compared to the shorthcomings of mistaking hazard assessment for risk assessment. No offence Mr 10 Bears, my comments are directed at a general audience.

Must you insult? I have done phased reductions and they worked, saving a hedge from otherwise certain death. The OP can make his own mind up from the conflicting advice, my advice being based on research, experience, checking 3 authoritative texts and yers of experimentation and a presumption that the OP doesn't want to take excessive risk of the hedge dying. Your one-liner would rely on the OP assuming you know everything about everything. Which you clearly do, so I must be wrong. Sorry.