Gary Prentice

I'm not so sure that it's guidance as such. Some planning authorities seem to condition no site clearances between march and august, others don't but require the surveys, perhaps to exhibit due diligence?

Maybe someone forgot to cull them?

We normally suffer the loss on nesting birds, but have negotiated additional fees off of one client, a large building company, when we drove 40 miles to a site for a days work to find one tree with a bird box (5ft off the ground) that was occupied) Our view is that the box, if unoccupied, should have been removed as soon as they took possession of the site, their responsibility. If we come across something, it happens, but they should be aware themselves and take measures. The lack of knowledge in the construction industry about nesting birds is actually quite concerning and surprising after the number of ecological surveys that go on, along with planning conditions regarding birds.

I struggle to get my head around this. It's wrong to disturb them, unless you're culling them:confused1:

And an article on wood decay fungi by another member....

Only fell about thirty foot, bumps & bruises and a smashed 020, which I landed on. Getting back on track, are these beetles to be found across the country. I've never seen another apart from the one in London?

Two! first one at age eleven, as above, and one about 1988 as as a climber. Can't remember any since to talk about.

That beetle, well not that particular one, was the cause of my first fall from a tree. I was pulling myself up on a branch to come face to face with one of those. I was so surprised/scared that I just let go and fell. I've never seen another since!

I wondered that!

I did that with some really flimsy fabric type mesh. Apart from catching it once or twice strimming, it lasted well enough until the hedge was established and it wasn't needed any more.

I think drilling a hole and pouring glyphosate in would, maybe, be a step to far! If the tree was lost due to root severance causing instability or died because of the root loss. that's a consequence of abatement. But poisoning leading to the loss/death of the tree just seems wrong!

Living next door to Buck House, I'm surprised you know about the common people:biggrin:

Pretty scary! I'd be more than a little concerned if that bridge had gone from no discernible wear to that by lunchtime. ( saw accidents aside) What diameter is the actual bridge - it looks pretty slim. I've damaged prussic loops and eye-to-eyes by very rapid descents, but that's an obvious cause, can't offer any explanation if it hasn't been nicked and the rings okay except what about the carabiner that's connected to the ring?

As I said in another post, it's sticky ground and should the occasion arise I'd happily admit that this is my understanding but I'm an arborist/arboriculturist - not a lawyer and neither is anyone else on here, that I know about.

Fixed that for you! I always, always explain that this is my understanding, as an arboriculturist, and suggest seeing a solicitor - if things are heading that way! IMO it's all very dodgy ground, LA legal departments might be very very good and know the position, or not! You'd get plenty of sleepness nights thinking that your defence for contravening a TPO was 'some bloke on the internet said it was ok'

As yet I haven't been in that position. The application I wrote about was submitted with the knowledge of the tree owner and the neighbour. I think the neighbour was within his rights to have gone ahead, without the consent of the LPA, but he was unwilling to take the risk and prepared to await the outcome of the application. On an unprotected tree, if over the fence discussion failed and common law law rights of abatement were going to be asserted, I'd definitely provide written notice, recorded delivery etc.

I was younger, and less confident. I think we all may have ended up in court, rightly or wrongly. No extra costs to customer, their drive was also damaged but the roots of their tree couldn't be a nuisance to them. I was preparing to submit, with details of all the additional costs of retaining the tree (which they'd seek to get re-imbursed from the LA) when the appeal decision came through. No replanting condition - the original tree was 'the wrong tree in the wrong place' to start with and replanting anything would have led to a similar issue along the line. I assume that the appeal is public record anyway, available somewhere, so Mick Boddy, the Inspector, stated that with much regret he upheld it because to paraphrase 'there was no alternative solution'. We'd hoped (TO, PO and myself) to be enlightened as to the legal position, as a precedent for future use, but IIRC the decision didn't really go into the legal side of it enough to draw conclusions. Shows that we're all learning as we go along.

Bluntly, that's the owners problem. If they didn't (or the previous owners didn't) prevent the tresspass/nuisance, why should the injured party have to suffer their inaction? You'd probably be negligent if you cut the roots without notice and the tree then failed, as has been pointed out in earlier posts. I removed a TPO'd tree because the roots were damaging a neighbours drive. The nuisance was 'actionable', in that actual damage had occurred. Severing the roots would have made the tree immediately unstable. The application was refused because the tree provided amenity, well it was TPO'd so we all understood that anyway. Planning argued that engineering solutions hadn't been considered, and went as far to suggest that the neighbours house could be jacked up to account for resurfacing and raising the level of the existing drive (they did suggest this may have been possible, but unreasonable) Anyway, the levels of the highway, pavement, driveway and garage didn't allow for an engineering solution, which I submitted to PINs The appeal was upheld.

Reading Mynors and remembering other articles and conversations, I think the less mischievous alludes more to protected trees - that's my take anyway. Ie. With TPO'd trees causing a nuisance 'by encroachment', engineering solutions should, ideally, be considered and disregarded before the root severance begins. I can't see though, in the absence of statutory protection, why any other means should or would need to be considered.

Have you been on the Port this morning?

[quote name=daltontrees;1588811 I believe there can only be one legal position that does not fall foul of tried and tested legal principles' date=' and that is that if the cutter foresees failure of the tree if roots are removed, and advises the tree owner to look out for the ensuing risks, and gives adequate time for the tree owner to put contingency plans in place, he must be allowed then to cut back the roots, without any justification. .[/quote] Didn't I say that?

Cheese and chive? Or something spicy?

So it's not hornbeam:biggrin:

It's normally a primary purpose up here, the design layout normally lands with the topographical plan:biggrin: But you're right.

I was waiting for you to come along:biggrin: or anyone else with some knowledge. 193 views and there's only three of us debating the subject! I can't remember who I spoke to or where I read it, but I'm fairly confident that it can't be a case that the neighbour has to accept the trespassing roots. The tree owner has failed to control his property, in allowing the roots to trespass. Whose fault is it, that by cutting the roots - negating the nuisance (legal nuisance or otherwise) that the tree dies or even falls over? I don't believe that the law expects the neighbour to have to suffer the continuing trespass for the sake of the tree? If the tree owner was responsible he'd have prevented it in the first place. It's a shame Mr Mynors has moved on, because it would be nice to get a definitive answer on this.