Gary Prentice

He didn't. Dave decided that he knew the article I'd read , added what he thought would or should have been also in it (it wasn't mentioned) and then on behalf of all those sufferers of an illness I didn't mention took umbrage

Talk about putting words in my mouth! Idiot.

An article I read recently was claiming that many of the most successful people, particularly in business, had a particular character trait - a lackey of empathy for those around them. Strangely enough this a trait shared by psychopaths. So maybe not stupid per se... edit. Charles Manson also had a cult like following

Which is why I keep saying 'forewarn', I've never advocated doing the work then notifying the neighbour. Edit, has anyone had a conifer fall over after one side of the canopy has been removed? I haven't but have seen hundreds standing.

He could possibly be both?

Even Dick Turpin wore a mask

As keeps being said, the reasonable cutter notifies of the intention/desire to cut limbs or roots. The responsible tree owner then has a duty of care to ensure the safety of his own tree. Can anyone please explain why the neighbour should suffer the encroachment? almost every hedge owner that I meet thinks that the next door neighbour should be responsible for 'their' side of the hedge. Why? It's such an abstract concept of imposition on others.

Hadn't investigated under-ground guying for this yet, but was kind of guessing that it might be inadequate. Due you use a proprietary set up or something home-made?

It's Ok Mick, no-one reads Arbtalk except us...

And was any conclusive answer reached? Wouldn't notifying of your intention to carry out works on your own land, which you are legally entitled to do, which may or may not lead to the death or failure of a tree on anothers land (which has not been kept on there own land) be reasonable and responsible? If I put supports in your garden for my balcony, would you leave them their in case my balcony collapsed after you cut them down? Could I hold you liable and should you have to tolerate them? To avoid reasonable harm, notify of your intention to self abatement and suggest expert opinion is sought as to their stability maybe.

I'm looking into transplanting a semi-mature monkey puzzle for a client. It's a really well furnished tree and in good health. Height wise, it's above the gutters of a two storey house and with a dbh of around 300mm. I'll have more information on that next week when we meet on the site. I've moved one previously, about twenty years ago, and seem to recall that it had a unusual root system without any real significant lateral roots. Clients a developer, so digging it up, transporting and planting isn't too much of an issue because of the available plant. At present I'm thinking either to build shuttering or rootwrap the rootball somehow to keep it together. Looking at the treespades on line, I'm not sure that we could source one sufficiently large for the job, or the expense could be justified for one tree if we could. Any experience, comments, thoughts would be appreciated. I'm hoping to be project managing this but I'd get involved just for the sake of the experience. If we can't get it moved, it's coming down as unsuitable in it's present location (10ft from the lounge window)

On what grounds would you sue? That he'd made the trees unsafe by exercising a common law right? I wish someone would clarify this, all that I remember reading is that you 'may' be negligent if as a result of your actions something falls over and causes damage. It only makes sense to me that negligence arises if you carry out the action without pre-warning of your intentions or the owner being unaware of the change in circumstances, lives elsewhere etc. Not that you have to pre-warn to remove overhanging limbs, that went through the courts a hundred years ago.

But only after serving notice on the owner to do the statutory works within 14-28 days. So they don't exactly turn up, do the work, bang on the front door and drive you down to the cashpoint I thought I'd covered all the bases in my 6AM post, but you you just had to point out the omission

I'd like something in writing, official like, to forward on to my LA, as they're very much unaware of it and as Treequip said "have no intention".

South Gloucester apparently disagree, as they class them as Laurel trees and you have to apply

He may not have much say in the matter. I understand that all planning authorities will be obliged to have TPO information available online by 2021. I cant remember where I read this, if anyone knows I'd appreciate it. As Treequip says, next door are brilliant. Loads of information online, email inquiries are answered the following day and they've even sent PDF's of orders to clarify questions FOC. It can be done

At the end of the day they are your trees. If you keep them in a condition that makes them unstable, knowingly, then it's down to you. The tree surgeon would make a great witness for the developer if the trees were cut back to your boundary and then fell over (whether they would or wouldn't is another matter and an unknown on the details provided) and then you tried to sue him. To establish where they may be be cut back to, under common law, you'll need to establish ownership of the footpath. Saying that the footpath has been given over to the council could be that he still owns the land and there's a right of way (maintained by the council) on it. If this is the case he has a common law right to cut back to the boundary between your property and the footpath. If he has 'gifted' the land and it's owned by the council, then the 'right' is the councils, not his. Generally, the neighbouring landowner can't force you to cut your trees back, they can exercise their rights and do it themselves, unless the nuisance is 'actionable' - the encroachment is causing actual, physical damage; and in that situation they actually need a County Court injunction of abatement.Edit: The local authority/highways authority operate under different legislation where there is a statutory duty to maintain passage, so they can tell you what to do or do it themselves, a different circumstance altogether. Others might (will) disagree, but my take on it is that the neighbouring landowner doesn't or shouldn't have to suffer the nuisance of encroaching limbs and roots, whether ordinary or actionable. They have a common law right (in the absence of statutory protection) to self help/abate it. If this then leads to loss of the trees, which you have (admittedly) allow to 'trespass', who is at fault? I'll borrow Daltontrees disclaimer, if I may? I post on Arbtalk for free mainly to help further my and others' understanding of trees, without prejudice to any of my professional work. Quote and rely on my postings at your own risk

TBH I wasn't sure of the correct term, but as I was stood in front of the barbie with a glass of good red minding a very good sirloin, 'fruit' had to suffice

At £150 it's mint. If worse comes to worse he'll make a profit between the new tyres and scrapping it. Free motoring, what's not to like?

I think you're right with the waisted 'fruit'

I did!

At least there's plenty of room for a mewp. (They'll need one) I was holding my tongue thinking that I'd be enlightened to the fact they're still be dismantled.

I stand corrected

Eucalyptus gunni

My overriding memory of that night and day, something that I'll never forget. I still remember working in a beech woodland, next to one of the Newmarket rides where mature trees lay one on top of another, on top of another.. The odd battered survivor standing alone amongst the carnage just didn't make sense amongst hundreds of uprooted and shattered trees.