crown lifting .......... your definition please

crown lifting .......... your definition please

Postby despair » Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:58 pm

100ft high and wide Sycamore tree with effectively 2 trunks just 8 ft from boundary causing massive shading and water extraction to neighbours garden such that nothing will grow
owners side the branches nearly touch the ground
other side over hang neighbours garden but are higher

Tree surgeon said he was going to Crown Lift the tree to give neighbour more light removing 2 metres from all branches

In effect all he did was remove about 50cm from one branch on neighbours side where several branches where always shedding dead twigs /branches

Hence severe problem for the neighbour remains
Last edited by despair on Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
despair
 
Posts: 16043
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

Ads are not endorsed by www.gardenlaw.co.uk or the staff thereof and visitors should perform their own due diligence on the product or service offered.
 

Re: crown lifting .......... your definition please

Postby despair » Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:15 pm

tree owner
despair
 
Posts: 16043
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

Re: crown lifting .......... your definition please

Postby TO » Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:52 am

Hi

Was the specification to which the tree surgeon was working written down so it was clear to everyone.
despair wrote:Crown Lift the tree to give neighbour more light removing 2 metres from all branches
Doesn't sound like a crown lift to me.

BS 3998 2010 Tree work - recommendations describes crown lifting as "Crown lifting involves pruning to achieve a desired vertical clearance above
ground level or other surface" so the specification should have stated what clearance above ground level, or other surface, was going to be achieved, e.g. crown lift to provide a vertical clearance of 3m between the [whatever surface] and the lowest remaining branches of the tree. If the written spec. doesn't match what has been done then you should get the tree surgeon back to do it. If you don't have a written spec. or it's not clear or ambiguous then you've got pretty much no chance.

TO
TO
 
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:05 pm

Re: crown lifting .......... your definition please

Postby despair » Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:38 am

Thank you ..............Glad your definition of "crown lifting "and mine match
despair
 
Posts: 16043
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

Re: crown lifting .......... your definition please

Postby despair » Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:54 am

The problem is more complex and delicate

The entire canopy from the main upright trunk overhangs the neighbour by a good 2 metres all the way up and if the overhang is cut back
will make the tree look very lop sided since the 2nd trunk leans out onto owners land with branches nearly touching the ground

Neighbour was at pains not to upset the owner by insisting on their own tree surgeon removing all overhang to the boundary
but was instead promised a proper crown lift both by the owner and their tree surgeon

Sadly now the only option is likely to create a breakdown of previously happy relationship in which the elderly owner has received huge help support time and expense from the neighbour whose own enjoyment of their garden is effectively being denied thanks to an unmaintained tree more suited to a forest than a domestic garden
despair
 
Posts: 16043
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

Re: crown lifting .......... your definition please

Postby arborlad » Sat Oct 05, 2013 11:31 pm

It would be preferable if the person with the problem were posting and explaining it.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7386
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: crown lifting .......... your definition please

Postby arsie » Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:33 am

Pictures would help but from what is described I doubt that crown lifting to 2.5m (the standard for pedestrians, 5.2m is required over roads) will let in much light. I would want/ask for more like this:
Image
arsie
 
Posts: 1955
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Norfolk

Re: crown lifting .......... your definition please

Postby despair » Sun Oct 06, 2013 11:32 am

I totally agree that the best solution would be as per the picture

Unfortunately the tree owner is very attached to the tree and apparently refuses to see there's a problem for the neighbour who suspects that what was originally promised and agreed has been watered down in the event to do minimum possible

The neighbour who is fairly elderly isnot in best financial situation would have contributed to a true crown lift and would obviously have to pay heavily to remove the quite considerable encroachment
(when the leaves have fallen I can visit and take photos of the base structure of the tree so experts on here can suggest best solution)
but understandably the neighbour feels pretty let down especially after all the assistance both in terms of time and expenditure they have already contributed in so many different instances to what is now becoming a very one sided benefit in favour of the tree owner
despair
 
Posts: 16043
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

Re: crown lifting .......... your definition please

Postby arsie » Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:01 pm

Tree owners so often do not have other than a rose-tinted view of their lovely tree and really don't give a sh*t for the blight and dark that their tree visits on neighbours. We could learn from the French in this, I believe that they have laws to impose responsibility on the owner to ensure that others are not so badly affected as this example - far from untypical - of our supposedly democratic land. Trees are a blot on the landscape. Not so much the trees but so often the totally inconsiderate self-centred arseholes that own them :roll:
arsie
 
Posts: 1955
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Norfolk

Re: crown lifting .......... your definition please

Postby despair » Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:14 am

The only way to deal with this tree is from the owners land

and as already stated the owner thinks the entire tree is wonderful and precious and does not want it touched at all

Hence any insistence on the neighbours part will result in bad feeling and more
despair
 
Posts: 16043
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

Re: crown lifting .......... your definition please

Postby arborlad » Mon Oct 07, 2013 5:51 pm

arsie wrote: We could learn from the French in this, I believe that they have laws to impose responsibility on the owner to ensure that others are not so badly affected as this example .................


Can you cite the actual law or give an example?



- far from untypical -


Actually, it's a long way from being typical.

There are 2247 topics in the 'Trees' section of this site.

There are 3814 million trees in the UK. (2012)

People with problems find their way to this site, trying to gauge the level of those problems by the contents of this site is a flawed concept.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7386
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: crown lifting .......... your definition please

Postby arsie » Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:03 pm

There are enough cases of inconsideration as regards trees and neighbours - this being one - to argue that these cases are not untypical. I did not go so far as to say typical nor do we need to get into a 'lies, damn lies and statistics' type of debate. What I believe about France is not worth much discussion however here is a link from a few seconds exploring on google which no doubt could be right or not like so much on the Internet :roll:
http://www.french-property.com/guides/france/property-rights/trees/

Why should one person have to live in a gloomy garden to satisfy another's 'love of trees' aka mean attitude?
arsie
 
Posts: 1955
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Norfolk

Re: crown lifting .......... your definition please

Postby TO » Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:09 pm

Hi
arsie wrote:Why should one person have to live in a gloomy garden to satisfy another's 'love of trees' aka mean attitude?
Or, why should the tree owner suffer constant bullying and harassment from their neighbour for doing what they are entitled to do. That is enjoy their garden as they see fit.

It's one of the commonest themes in this forum that if someone living next to trees they don't like, the tree owner is labelled a bully. If a tree owner receives constant complains from a neighbour about the trees the neighbour is labelled a bully.

Far too much is written/posted that is nothing other than tea and sympathy slanted towards whatever it is the poster wants to hear. Usually the "bully" is doing nothing wrong. The complainant doesn't see the problems they are causing, which often leads to a digging in of heels, a breakdown in relationship between neighbours, and a belief that they are right and the other is wrong, although they could, in most cases, if they wanted resolve the problem themselves, but of course they don't see why they should.

TO
TO
 
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:05 pm

Re: crown lifting .......... your definition please

Postby despair » Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:46 pm

The problem in this particular case is the affected neighbour has not asked /bullied or harassed the tree owner

they simply explained their problem last year and knowing how attached the owner is to the tree did not instruct tree surgeons to simply remove the trespass as the law allows knowing this would make the tree look lop sided and upset the owner

Instead they were told the tree surgeon would do a crown lift and this was confirmed so they waited patiently but now upset is inevitable
despair
 
Posts: 16043
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

Re: crown lifting .......... your definition please

Postby arsie » Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:51 pm

TO wrote:Hi
arsie wrote:Why should one person have to live in a gloomy garden to satisfy another's 'love of trees' aka mean attitude?
Or, why should the tree owner suffer constant bullying and harassment from their neighbour for doing what they are entitled to do. That is enjoy their garden as they see fit.

It's one of the commonest themes in this forum that if someone living next to trees they don't like, the tree owner is labelled a bully. If a tree owner receives constant complains from a neighbour about the trees the neighbour is labelled a bully.

Far too much is written/posted that is nothing other than tea and sympathy slanted towards whatever it is the poster wants to hear. Usually the "bully" is doing nothing wrong. The complainant doesn't see the problems they are causing, which often leads to a digging in of heels, a breakdown in relationship between neighbours, and a belief that they are right and the other is wrong, although they could, in most cases, if they wanted resolve the problem themselves, but of course they don't see why they should.

TO

The original post by Despair (and subsequently) on behalf of an elderly person does seem to me to warrant support for the tree blightee not the blighter. Although of course like all such posts we are dependent on what is said, we are not told of any history of harrassment of the tree owner rather it is painted from the point of the majority of people who do not set out to harrass. However, the root cause of these situations lies with the owner of the - in my view - unsuitable tree. 'Enjoying their garden as they see fit' if it cuts off the sun from others so that they cannot enjoy their gardens let alone grow anything is simply not fair. Being able to do absolutely nothing about the situation in law and being at the mercy of the tree owner can be intolerable. Of course all tree owners are fair minded people who, if spoken to nicely, will restore the sunlight that their trees are cutting off and will even spend £thousands on this? Perhaps in cloud cuckoo land :roll:

In my opinion there ought to be something more than the high hedge legislation, to cater for trees which, deliberately planned or just inherited, are not suitable species for a crowded urban environment. This is of course highly dependent on the circumstances and closeness or not of the large trees to others' houses. From our garden we look out across fields and there are some magnificent specimens such as mature sycamore standing proud and solitary. If such trees were 2 metres from my southern boundary and allowed to grow - for many sycamores are self- or naturally-seeded - I would take exception. Wise and far-seeing people know the likely outcome from a five foot sapling which many in rural parts consider a weed - a densely foliated tree over 25 metres tall in not very many years. No one should be allowed to grow such a plant without consideration or better for those affected. Blighted is not too strong a word for the affect on elderly people in whose declining years of good health and diminished mobility they should at least be allowed to enjoy a garden with enough sunlight - and water - for their own plants to grow. Many will not have the money to pay for or contribute much towards tree surgery. And why should they, as an unwitting victim. We have many rules and regulations surrounding buildings only 1/3rd of that height so why not trees? The tree preservation lobby has set the bar very low at 75mm diameter trunk for a tree to be automatically under protection. One thing I notice is that tree lovers don't often grow or allow such trees to exist on the southern parts/boundaries of their own gardens. They know the effect trees have in blocking the sun. Even if the 'innocent' tree grower has been made clearly aware of the effect their lovely (from their perspective) tree causes, very few are careful and considerate enough with their trees. Never mind if relations have broken down as an excuse to do nothing. Which of course costs nothing whereas tree surgery is expensive.

We need legislation for high trees in dense urban situations.
arsie
 
Posts: 1955
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Norfolk

Ads are not endorsed by www.gardenlaw.co.uk or the staff thereof and visitors should perform their own due diligence on the product or service offered.
 
Next

Return to Trees

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest