Chris at eden

The current NHBC chapter 4.2 which makes provision for foundations near trees is dated 2010. Older versions make different recommendations for foundation depth, water demand, zone of influence, etc. Therefore a building that is 30 years old would probably not have foundations to the current spec. If the guidance they had in those days was acceptable it would not have been changed. You could assume that the builders went overboard with the foundation spec 30 years ago as a belt and braces type approach but in reality this wouldn't happen. Concrete is expensive so builders will usually install foundations to the minimum dept to meet NHBC and building regs and to be fair you can't blame them. If the experts say this is ok then why not.

Now this is pedantic but its important so i'll say it anyway. Cases have been won and lost on appeal by the inappropriate use of the word 'proven' in this type of case. This type of case takes place in the civil area so there is no burden of proof as with criminal law. i.e. beyond resonable doubt. Civil litigation is based on the balance of probabilities. i.e. that there is more chance than not. for example, if there is a 51% or indeed a 50.01% chance that the damage was caused by the tree that is enough to win. This wouldn't come close in a criminal case such as TPO prosecution. Its a point worth remembering when advising clients.

All good comments Jules as always and I agree 99%. One small comment though. I think it was the Delaware mansions case down in London where they under pinned the whole building and not just the bit that was damaged. Reason was to prevent a continuing nuisance and proactively prevent future damage before it had occurred. It was way over the top but I think they won full costs on appeal. Spot on with the comment about foreseeable, I can't quite believe people still try to say they didn't know the trees could damage structures as a defence. Really?

This is an interesting point. I don't personally think the council can enforce a tpo on something that is clearly a hedge. But can you apply HH legislation to any row of evergreen trees? for example, an avenue of Douglas fir with connecting canopies. The wording is a row of two or more evergreen trees or shrubs as far as I am aware. What you think Jules?

The council enforcement officer wouldn't take this on as you have to exhaust every other avenue before getting them involved. You would basically be saying I can't come to an agreement with myself therefore can you mediate.

Hi, In theory you could be held liable for any damage caused by your tree to the neighbours property. I do subsidence prediction reports for mortgage approval as part of my business so I will clear up some of the other points already raised. The roots will pass way past the drip line and possibly up to 3x the tree height in extreme cases. As woodyguy said at least 30m but this isn't that relevant. What you need to consider is zone of influence, how far away your tree could be from a building and still extract enough moisture to cause subsidence. In the case of your tree you may be looking at around 17-18m according to NHBC guidance. So you are within the zone of influence for both yours and the neighbours property. 30 years old is not a modern building and may not have foundations to the depth of what is currently recommended by NHBC. So don't count on this. Granted probably deeper than a Victorian house, unless it has a cellar of course. You also need to look at soil type as only certain soils are shrinkable and prone to subsidence from trees. E.g. London clay is highly shrinkable, while Kidderminster sandstone isn't. These are types of bedrock and there are many others plus you also have to consider superficial deposits that could also be shrinkable. If you are really that worried you could always get tree report to assess the likelihood. Hope this helps,

High hedges if enforced on a row of evergreen trees would definitely supersede a TPO. The implementation of a high hedge notice in accordance with the ASB act would be a statutory requirement and that is a definite TPO exception/exemption. In England that is, not sure about north of the border. Are you still on the 2008 regs for TpO's?

I personally think this is straight forward. You submit an application to fell the hedge based on the fact it is not a tree. If refused appeal to the pins. The inspector wont dodge making a decision on this as he/she will have to consider the statement of reasons made by the applicant and the planning TO's response.

I don't think you would get too far with that one mate. The claims against the council which were prevented by article 5's were damages not maintenance. For example, if the council refused an application to fell a tree because it was damaging a wall the applicant could sue them for the cost of repair. The old a5 would effectively protect the council from this but as you say they have gone. I don't think you could apply this to maintenance though.

With regards to the other points you made. You need a tree survey and impact assessment irrespective of whether the trees are tpo'd. Trees are a material consideration and councils have a duty to protect them in the face of development. With regard to the planning app there are five elements you will need to provide information on as standard. Access, layout, scale, appearance, and landscape. The tree survey ties in with the latter so there shouldn't be any getting away with it. I wouldn't rely on the council using the word hedge in a consent as a suitable defence if you fell without permission. For one that wording probably came directly from the application and they just repeat it in the consent. TPO contravention is a criminal offence so you get a criminal record as well as a fine worst case scenario. Being in the criminal arena the magistrate would also look at mitigating and aggravating factors. The word hedge may well be a mitigating factor but the fact that the tree officer has been out and told you it is protected will be an aggravating factor and will most likely out weigh the word hedge. Your best option is to apply to fell as you do not believe it is worthy of a tpo due to it being a hedge if in fact it is. It may be worth getting something in writing from a tree professional to support the app. If it is refused you can appeal to the planning inspectorate. You would then get a definitive answer.

Photos would be helpful. Look at it objectively and think how you would describe it. The wording in the guidance to describe a tree is 'anything that you would normally consider to be a tree'. If it looks like a row of small trees they can probably get away with it. If its a neatly trimmed hedge with right angle corners then probably not.

I have the 308 estate with the 110hdi engine. Really good car with a huge boot and you can get with 7 seats. Does between 500 and 600 miles on a tank of fuel. 70 quid to fill from bone dry.

Read section 23 of the act carefully and run your thoughts by legal and remember the council are not the duty holder, the tree owner is. If the neighbour has an issue with the tree next door they could hire a consultant to inspect the tree themselves and get a solicitor to write and put them on notice if there is a problem identified by the arb consultant. As soon as you go and inspect you become duty holder at least in part. Consider also, how will you inspect properly without access. If you work in planning you may have right of access but these powers of access don't go down well with residents and you may end up calling the police so bit of a can of worms really. From the sound of things they haven't actually said there is anything wrong with the tree. Big is not necessarily dangerous so I think you would need more to go on. If they were to say the tree is a dead 80ft poplar with honey fungus at the base and it was stood next to a school playground that would be different but in reality, the powers are still discretionary and the duty holder is the tree owner. But in that latter instance it would be reasonable to look into the issue and unreasonable to not. With the case you have is it reasonable to expect the council to inspect a private tree when there are no real concerns? is that a good use of public funds? if yes then inspect but if not don't. As I said previously though always run these things through legal as they are the experts and different LA's will take a different view. These are just my views and experiences and should not be considered as expert legal advice but I hope this helps.

Just got rid of a freelander td4, good car but expensive to run as a family car. The petrol is under powered, unreliable, and very expensive to run from what I am told. The crv is supposed to have one of the best diesel engines around from what I have read. As previous posts have said, don't buy a modern diesel to drive short distances around town as you will get problems with the dpf. I have a 58 plate diesel 308sw with a dpf but I drive on the motorway several times a week so no probes at all and i get 600 miles out of a tank.

Yeah. Its a ridiculous bit of legislation which is usually ignored by the person it is served on. The LA then takes on the liability if they don't do the works. The powers are discretionary so if you can avoid it that isn't a bad idea. There are different requirements in each of the sub sections as well. For example, s23(1) requires the danger to be imminent yet others don't seem to. What is the exact situation? You should also run everything through legal before you send out.

I had a month off a few years ago cos the doctor told me it would be a good idea. Found it really hard and counted down the month. More recently I had 9 months off while my wife was pregnant as she couldn't drink, only fair I thought and I needed to be ready for anything. Didn't bother me at all. I have 3 or 4 pints now when we go out to eat and stop when I get home for my sons bedtime at 7pm. Motivation is a big player I think. Once you get used to it its not hard you just need to break the habit. Good luck.

You doing IRP on sbd?

Does anyone have any thoughts on how this ties in with the clever clip model for branch attachment?

All fair points but the tree failed from a defect and I just wouldn't personally call that strategic. That's just my view though.

Cheers dude. I agree SBD is usually further out on the limb in my experience.

It could be I suppose but that wasn't my thinking with the rain. I was thinking extra weight and increased static load and the effect that would have on aerodynamic drag.

I see where you are coming from but I don't personally think so or if it is not a very good one. The shedding of small diameter braches in winds to save the tree yes. But this is half the tree and has left a large wound that will never occlude in a soft wooded tree. This tree is doomed sooner or later.

Its a co-dominant stem failure. The equal size of both leaders means there are no over lapping fibres to keep the branch in place when loaded. Normal branches are enclosed by the larger trunk material. This one also has a lean which introduces a static load into the fork and increases the effect of dynamic loading from the weather. You can actually see how the branch has twisted as it came down giving an indication of the load. Was there heavy rain when it failed?

It kinda looks like damage you would get on a smaller tree if you left the stake on too long which caused abrasion as it moved in the wind. Is this possible. Judging by the size of tree it really would have been left on for a while. Just a thought.