DanR

Many thanks Kevin, and to everyone for your time and contributions. It's very helpful and much appreciated. Clearly no case is the same and has to be considered carefully as you say.

Expected Remaining Contribution as within the BS5387 guidelines as I read them seems to be the standard/generic reference for any tree graded C level. If the trusty hammer and expert ear backs that up fine and if it impacts that timeframe, then valuable knowing I think.

Fair point Jules, however clearly there are two sides to every coin. If the tree didn't pose any problems with excessive root encroachment, damage to structures, risk of failure due to disease and was a fine specimen, then there would be no debate here. It cuts both ways and I guess everything needs a healthy level of pragmatism.

Ha! Well I noticed the report stated under Survey Limitations that "No internal decay devices/ invasive tools were used during this site survey". I thought it prudent to google what those devices could be and that's what came up. Maybe there are different ones but in any case, a fairly significant limitation I think when providing a definitive lifespan for a tree with disease on visual basis only and that becomes the main argument for retaining it. In hindsight I wish I had a Shigometer in the cupboard ?

Thanks Kevin, you are totally right. In our situation the tree is mature, diseased, has been categorised as C level and the roots are causing problems. Our offer (on the basis of initial specialist advice) to help cover costs for removal and replacement with something new and with root barriers, has been declined. The hope was to avoid an official dispute, however we are in an unfortunate position now and only time will tell how this plays out. Out of interest, for the specialists among you, when a tree is diseased evident by a clear fruiting bracket (which i have read that by the time it shows means it will have likely had the disease internally for a few years already), is it possible to give a definitive minimum life expectancy purely on a visual basis? If no specialist equipment is used to determine the level of internal decay during the inspection ie a Shigometer® or a Vitalometer for example, how can the level or severity of decay be known? A minimum of 10+ years life expectancy provided as an absolute within a report, strikes me as pure guess work considering any increase in internal decay can be impacted by unpredictable external/environmental factors. Internal heartwood rot to my understanding is just that, internal and from the inside out. Last year a 9-10 meter 2.5ton horse chestnut that was decayed internally, failed and fell onto our driveway (crushed the car, ruined the driveway and missed the front of our house by 90cm). Having lived through that, I hope you understand the concerns as I hoped our neighbours would have also. In any case, I would assume that ongoing decay is a given, it cannot be stopped - 20% / 30% decay now for example could turn in to 60% - 70% relatively quickly or may not and no one knows what that % currently is. I believe it's unpredictable and therefore the risk of death and failure of the tree is very much real and possible as we experienced first hand. It's why when I read a report that talks in certainties based on no scientific measurement it raises concerns. Thanks Dan

Hi all, Thank you for the continued discussion on this and apologies I haven't been able to follow up until now. This is all very insightful to read from a layman's point of view. From the ongoing conversation it clearly shows that there are many points to consider and differing opinions. However, once again from an inexperienced perspective (mine ), it shows the lack of definitive legal guidance on where liability lies and therefore sadly will be one for the legal system to answer in due course. I also wanted to clarify that when referring to damage, what we are challenged with is not a pipe but rather large roots directly butting up against a square concrete manhole shaft which has an internal horizontal crack and root ingress inside it about a foot down among other things. Foreseeable future problems along with the damage now is the concern if the roots are left unabated. In any case, I thank you all for you time, input and guidance so far. Much appreciated. Dan

Hi Paddy, Thanks for the feedback. The tree is only 5-6 meters high and has had a heavy pruning regime over the years. If the owners are made aware of the intention to sever and given ample time to ensure structural stability, the question still remains....are they required to mitigate the possible instability or can simply ignore on the basis that if it falls they can simply pursue damages... Best Dan

Hi Kevin, Thank you for reviewing. To answer the questions and observations please see as follows: There is the large root in direct contact with the sewage system and there were roots that made their way inside and in cracks between the concrete internally. We believe it is foreseeable that problems will arise in future if the roots are unabated. We also had a front pillar to the house that was leaning and believed to be due to roots beneath causing ground movement. The pillar is no longer there as was removed during part of the remedial works. We have photos and shared with the consultants. Re the consultants themselves, the did not visit in person, however I provided detailed videos and photos in order to understand their preliminary view. They were willing to do so for free, and objectively as I requested when emailing them. The intention was to simply better understand the situation we were in and any advice on the best course of action by accredited specialists. They gave willingly and they did clarify that it could only be advice based visuals and not an in person visit. That was totally fine and fair at the time so that we could openly discuss with the tree owners and hopefully find an amicable solution. Thank you for clarifying that the notice provided to the council was an acknowledgment and not approval. They raised no objection. Dan

Thank you Julian and Khriss. To say that the points of view so far on this topic have been unclear is an understatement. This is very helpful thanks again. To add some further context, with respect to length of time at the property, the house was purchased 3 years ago. Last year, a council owned 2.5t horse chestnut that was decayed, unfortunately failed and fell on to the driveway crushing the car and damaging the driveway. The council admitted liability and the matter was settled. A year later driveway renovations commenced. During excavation, the encroaching roots of next doors Cherry became visible and their direct contact with the sewage structure also clear hence "nuisance" (one root 150mm in diameter). The tree is approx. 30 years old and has a root radius of over 8.5 meters on the neighbours side. That matter was raised with the tree owners as well as preliminary opinions from 3 independent Arb Consultants from the Arb Association. They advised that Cherry's have expansive and high sitting root systems and their suggestions was that the most sensible consideration would be to remove and replant a semi mature tree, a little further away from the boundary line and with a root protection barrier. An offer to contribute to the cost of removing and replanting was put forward to the tree owners along with the consultants emails in order to try and reach an amicable solution. The offer was rejected. The services of one of the consultants was subsequently acquired to formally assess the tree. At this point, the tree's heavy pruning regime evidenced by poor pruning stubs and Ganoderma (visible fruiting bracket) were observed. It was categorised as a C. Following this, a Section 211 application to sever the roots along the boundary line was submitted to the council and tree owners informed of the intention to sever and advised to seek their own independent advice in order to mitigate any possible structural instability. The council subsequently approved the application and tree owners informed again of intention to sever with a date set a few weeks down the line (ensuring sufficient time to seek advice). A consultant for the tree owners did subsequently attend. The time will shortly come to sever the encroaching roots, however to the question in my first post, the challenge with the common law right to sever vs causing "possible" harm to a declining tree if it fails or falls, still seems to be an answer that many are unclear on in terms of liability and on which side it sits. Thanks Dan

Hi, I have a question relating to a neighbour dispute where the roots of a neighbouring mature Cherry Tree have crossed the boundary line and are causing trespass and nuisance. The tree itself is under a meter from the boundary line, a large root in direct contact with a sewage system, is in decline and has Ganoderma. The tree owners have been notified and the affected neighbours have had an application to sever along the boundary line approved by the council (they are in a conservation area). It seems that according to common law the roots can be cut back to the boundary line, however there is suggestion that if such actions result in the tree's instability or potential hastened decline/failure, the affected neighbour could be held liable? The owners of the tree will have been informed in good time of the intention to sever in order that they have time to seek independent advice to mitigate any structural instability. Is the affected neighbour more at risk for severing the roots or does the tree owner have a responsibility to mitigate the severance irrespective of impact to the tree having been made aware prior? Dialogue between the neighbours has been exhausted and unsuccessful thus far. Thanks