You are confusing 'nuisance' & staututory Nuisance. It may be annoying to
a developer that there is a tree in the way, but that's a nuisance. If the
overhanging/growing branches/roots are damaging the property of the said
developer, that is a stat. Nuisance, & a different matter. On your earlier
point, compensation in relation to TPO trees, I believe, is specifically
restricted to non-development potential issues. - so a civil claim for loss
of value would not succeed. I hope I'm still correct on that
Happy Christmas
Rupert
-----Original Message-----
From: Andersonarb@xxxx.com [SMTP:Andersonarb@xxxx.com]
Sent: 18 December 2001 18:20
To: uktc@xxxxxxxxx.co.uk
Subject: Re: Offensive behaviour
In a message dated 18/12/01 17:06:18 GMT Standard Time,
treecision@xxxxx.co.uk writes:
The LPA, who do not have SPG in relation to trees and did
not see fit to put
a TPO on this high amenity value tree, have allowed
development to within 5m
of the stem centre on one side and 7m on another, on the
adjacent land.
While in principle I think you're bang to rights Jules, let us
consider the scenario thus:
The LA TPO the tree then refuse the builder plannig permission as
development will affect the tree.
The builder then goes to the tree owner and says "your tree is
devaluing my site therefore you owe me £Xk to compensate me for my financial
loss"
The tree owners then go to the LA and say "your TPO has just cost us
£Xk, therefore we expect compensation!"
Therefore by ignoring the tree the LA have saved everybody a pile of
loot and trouble.
Now I don't like the above one little bit, but if what I think
Charles Mynors said a couple of years ago is correct; that is "a neighbour
has an absolute right to abate nuisance whether or not a TPO is in force"
then I don't think that anyone is going to achieve anything.
There were a lot of dropped jaws when Charles announced that one but
I'm sure thats what he said. Anybody else there (Midlands Branch AA meeting)
to testify?
Of course if you only have a right to 'abate nuisance' then perhaps
there's an argument to be had but my understanding is that if the above is
true, then if the famous Leeds City Council v Sun Timber Company had gone to
appeal then the Noble wigs would have let em off! (sorry "orf")
It seems to me that devaluing a plot of land is definitely a
'nuisance.'
Maybe the Town Planners have got an unwritten agreement that they
always refuse permission on other grounds.
And remember that by definition "you cannot be a nuisance to
yourself." Therefore the Planners can refuse permission because of trees on
the plot but not because of trees off the plot.
Tricky one; I'd love Charles to get his book published so we can
argue the toss about such matters in this forum. (Assuming any of us can
afford it; I bet it costs more than Giles Biddle's tome!)
Looking forward to the comments on the above.
Bill.
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubcribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxx.co.uk
