In a message dated 04/09/2006 13:42:02 GMT Standard Time, dscottcul@xxxx.net
writes:
so how does the subsidence case logic apply to this scenario?
I'd try and keep the two things completely separate Scott. My opinions as to
the who or what is to blame for subsidence are a separate matter but I don't
think that the recovery of costs is in any doubt. Your cricket ball went
through my window? Your fault.
The thing abuot TPOs is that they are negative, they stop people from
cutting trees down, I cannot see that there is any power within the regs for
an LA
to demand that work is undertaken. LAs are empowered to demand that safety
work is undertaken, not just to trees, but also to walls or chimneys etc.
that
are likely to collapse and cause injury. (Miscellaneous Provisions Act?)
If the tree wasn't TPOd and the LA said "stop it being a danger" you could
cut it down. Problem solved. But this course of action is not open to me cos
there's a TPO and the application to cut it down was refused although
permission was granted to prune.
As I say, if the problem was minor; remove that twig to stop it scratching
my eye out, then the demand would hardly be onerous. But get up there,
undertake major surgery and then some, is a different kettle of fish.
If we wade thorugh the history of TPOs and the spirit (not necessarily the
letter) of the legislation we can probably find that the system was not
meant
to discourage people from growing trees. Onereous obligations on TPOd tree
owners might very well discourage anyone from ever planting a tree.
I could solve the situation by appealing the refusal and I'm fairly sure I'd
win but I was trying to get through it more quickly.
As for compensation? I have actually very occasionally seen clients receive
grant-aid for works on protected trees, noticeably from a National Park
authority. Occasionally? Twice.
Bill.
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
