"Share Tree" is this possible?

Re: "Share Tree" is this possible?

Postby cobdale » Thu Mar 06, 2014 7:19 pm

by the sounds of your neighbour,I would ent be surprised if she had tried her case with the previous owners of your house,she seemed very well prepared
cobdale
 
Posts: 355
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:19 pm

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: "Share Tree" is this possible?

Postby arborlad » Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:10 am

GracieMagoo wrote:
arborlad wrote:
GracieMagoo wrote:
Re: replacing the fences. [b] We have replaced the ones on the other side and [/b]when this gets resolved we will replace these ones to. At the moment I couldn't deal with negotiating there placement with the neighbour.



Are you likely to be using the same fencer, most are happy to give advice in these circumstances.



Hopefully, he was good. I don't think he would stand a chance at the moment though, so it will have to wait until the tree gets sorted.



I think we may have our wires a little crossed, I was meaning that the fencer give an opinion on where the tree is located relative to the boundary, whether it is your tree or not.

Have you had a quote for felling the tree, is it within your budget, it may be quicker and simpler to fell and move on - subject to relevant approval of course.
arborlad

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

Re: "Share Tree" is this possible?

Postby APC » Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:28 am

despair wrote:I would seek help from the Councils Tree Officer

He will know a diseased tree when he sees it and should be capable of seeing whose land its on


Tree officers generally don't have the time and certainly don't have the responsibility to get involved in private tree disputes. The onus would be on the tree owner to provide evidence, usually in the form of an arb report to the tree officer in order to become interested in it with regards works on a tree in a Cons Area.

A few general points though:

The presence of Meripilus giganteus used to result in outright felling of beech. It is indeed a significant decay fungus which is tricky to appreciate even through root inspections as the decay is often confined to the undersides of roots. However, think about all of those beech that you see with the massively interesting bases, the exaggerated buttressing and woven shapes (sorry that may be a really poor description, I'm just trying to describe something without pictures :o ). This is often the body language found with Meripilus and shows that the tree has adapted. The problem that Meripilus can lead to is windthrow, caused by the widespread decay of smaller roots. By the time this occurs it should be apparent in the crown through localised or thorough dieback (loss of roots = loss of ability to move water and nutrients from the soil to the crown). At this stage it is usually wise to take action to make the tree safe. The latest research on ancient beech trees shows that they are capable of overcoming this fungus given the right conditions, therefore windthrow becomes less likely (check the new Ancient and Veteran Tree Mgt book edited by David Lonsdale).

Are you exposed to an unacceptable level of risk? This would be a question for the arb report to answer. Consider the use of your garden. You are worried for your children and who wouldn't be? Most tree failures occur in winds of >F8 (or thereabouts). So this would be in the autumn/winter. How often do you children use the garden in the autumn/winter? Do you let them play outside in incremental weather conditions? If they were in the garden and it fell, how likely is it that the tree would fall where they are likely to be? Do you see where I'm going? (I'm not saying the tree doesn't need felling, but a lot of calls I get about council-owned trees is that their children play in the garden and our trees are dangerous because they drop the thin ends of branches in gales, so I try to put things in perspective).

Regarding your statement about you having to pay for overhanging branches to be pruned, this is unfortunately the way it is. A tree owner has no responsibility for preventing their tree growing over boundaries and therefore is not obliged to pay for them to be pruned. If you want to get it cut back to the boundary, or reduced on your side at all, you are entitled under your common law rights to do this although the neighbourly thing is to tell your neighbour and ask if they want the branches back. As you have said though, the tree is in a Cons Area therefore you need to notify the council of your intent to do carry out these works. Removing too much foliage though can cause the Meripilus to be better able to exploit the weakened tree.

To truly establish ownership of this tree, in the absence of paperwork to prove or disprove your ownership, I would suggest hiring a solicitor with experience in boundary disputes. It's a pain I know, but to get it sorted once and for all it might be worth it in the long run.
APC
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2013 6:37 pm

Re: "Share Tree" is this possible?

Postby arborlad » Fri Mar 07, 2014 1:30 pm

APC wrote:To truly establish ownership of this tree, in the absence of paperwork to prove or disprove your ownership, I would suggest hiring a solicitor with experience in boundary disputes. It's a pain I know, but to get it sorted once and for all it might be worth it in the long run.



Not sure how a solicitor, and the attendant costs can be justified. There is an established boundary feature, it would help if the OP can verify ownership, but even without that knowledge, unless there are some unknown peculiarities, a fencer should be able to give an opinion of which side of the boundary the tree is located.
arborlad

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

Re: "Share Tree" is this possible?

Postby arborlad » Fri Mar 07, 2014 9:43 pm

GracieMagoo wrote:Hello I have been trying to add photos but the site says the file is too large.



................worth persevering with I think.
arborlad

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

Re: "Share Tree" is this possible?

Postby ukmicky » Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:29 pm

If the boundary fence line has been in its present position for 10 years or more you need to gain no legal advice as to where the boundary lies.
Advice given is not legally qualified and you are advised to gain a professional opinion
ukmicky
 
Posts: 4545
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:13 pm
Location: London

Re: "Share Tree" is this possible?

Postby ukmicky » Mon Mar 10, 2014 5:28 pm

nothingtodowithme wrote:
ukmicky wrote:If the boundary fence line has been in its present position for 10 years or more you need to gain no legal advice as to where the boundary lies.

You may need to go back to the drawing board with that statement.


I like the way you used the word may.


Anyhow , why
Advice given is not legally qualified and you are advised to gain a professional opinion
ukmicky
 
Posts: 4545
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:13 pm
Location: London

Re: "Share Tree" is this possible?

Postby MacadamB53 » Mon Mar 10, 2014 5:47 pm

ukmicky wrote:
nothingtodowithme wrote:
ukmicky wrote:If the boundary fence line has been in its present position for 10 years or more you need to gain no legal advice as to where the boundary lies.

You may need to go back to the drawing board with that statement.


I like the way you used the word may.


Anyhow , why

Hi ukmicky,

If the boundary fence line has been in its present position for 10 years or more

It's been repeatedly moved because of the tree and the remedial work.
I think this is what nothingtodowithme may be referring to.

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6033
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: "Share Tree" is this possible?

Postby arborlad » Mon Mar 10, 2014 8:29 pm

GracieMagoo wrote: It has grown against the fence pushing it all but over in one place.



MacadamB53 wrote:It's been repeatedly moved because of the tree and the remedial work.
arborlad

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

Re: "Share Tree" is this possible?

Postby MacadamB53 » Mon Mar 10, 2014 9:05 pm

arborlad wrote:
GracieMagoo wrote: It has grown against the fence pushing it all but over in one place.



MacadamB53 wrote:It's been repeatedly moved because of the tree and the remedial work.

Hi arborlad,

The fence being pushed all but over in one place does not mean it has moved just the one time.
The OP has not owned the property long enough to know for sure whether the fence hasn't been shifted to cope with the tree.

Kind regards, Mac
PS But for a conclusive photo to contradict the OP, we all pretty much know the tree is stood on the neighbour's garden, so what advice can be given?
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6033
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: "Share Tree" is this possible?

Postby arborlad » Mon Mar 10, 2014 9:11 pm

MacadamB53 wrote:.......... so what advice can be given?



..................stop making up your own version of events!!
arborlad

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

Re: "Share Tree" is this possible?

Postby MacadamB53 » Mon Mar 10, 2014 9:17 pm

arborlad wrote:
MacadamB53 wrote:.......... so what advice can be given?



..................stop making up your own version of events!!

Thanks arborlad,

point taken. ;)

Any advice for the OP "if the tree is hers then I think..."

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6033
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 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.
 
Previous

Return to Trees

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests