UKTC Archive

RE: damage liability

Subject: RE: damage liability
From: Wright, Matthew
Date: Oct 31 2001 17:17:38
Tony,

The "nuisance" in the Delaware Mansions v Westminster case was a legal
nuisance in that it involved significant subsidence (i.e. actual damage) to
a block of flats which was deemed to have been caused by an adjoining
council-owned tree. Section 6.9 of the Blue Book advises that the term
"nuisance" is used in a legal sense rather than its everyday sense for the
purposes of section 198.6.b of the Town & Country Planning Act (further
clarification is given in section 198.15). As far as I am aware, leaves,
mossy lawns etc. are not deemed to be legal nuisances and could not be used
as a reason to fell the tree under the "nuisance" exemption but it would
probably be worthwhile getting a definition on legal nuisance from your
legal section rather than relying on the opinion of a red-necked arborist. 


Matthew

Matthew Wright
Landscape & Tree Officer
Planning Services, Exeter City Council, Civic Centre, Paris Street,  
Exeter  EX1 1NN

Ph: 01392 XXXXXX   
Fax: 01392 XXXXXX  
E-mail: matt.wright@xxxxxxx.gov.uk
Web: www.exeter.gov.uk

The views expressed in this e-mail are personal and may not necessarily
reflect those of Exeter City Council, unless explicitly stated otherwise. 

Please note that this message and its content are for the intended recipient
only. If you are not the intended recipient please disregard the content and
return to the original sender.

----------
From:         Vowell Anthony R
CDE/EDP[SMTP:AnthonyRVowell@xxxxxxxx.gov.uk]
Reply To:     UK Tree Care
Sent:         31 October 2001 16:20
To:   UK Tree Care
Subject:      damage liability

<<File: InterScan_Disclaimer.txt>><<File: ATT06434.txt>>
Has anyone seen the law report in last Friday's Times [October26th]
regarding tree root damage to property and recovery of expenditure and
the abatement of a continuing nuisance.

The actual case seems very complicated, but hinges on the fact that
present owners can sue for damage that might have took place many years
prior [if I've read it properly]

The appeal before the House of Lords was in short:


" in the proposition that where there is a continuing nuisance of which
the defendant knew or should have known, reasonable remedial expenditure
could be recoverd by the owner who had to incur it [to abate the
nuisance ]."

 Does this open up a whole can of worms along the lines of " I've had to
clean my gutters/paint the house/de-moss the lawn" etc etc ad-nauseum
" because of the TPO tree over there on his/her/etc land, and therefore
I'm suing the owner for the costs incurred"

The owner can then fell said TPO tree with impunity because it is seen
as an abatement of a nuisance, as aided and abetted by the Court.

I'd be interested in any views on this, as I have an owner who is
itching to use it as an excuse to felling a 200 year old Oak covered by
a TPO.

Tony Vowell

Trees Officer Gwynedd Council


The UK Tree Care mailing list - http://uktc.oak-wood.co.uk/
To unsubscribe send mailto:unsubscribe-uktc@xxxxxxxxx.co.uk
To change your subscription options visit http://uktc.oak-wood.co.uk/admin/