UKTC Archive

Re: Perrin Appeal

Subject: Re: Perrin Appeal
From: Andersonarb
Date: Dec 24 2007 07:57:12
 
In a message dated 21/12/2007 09:19:21 GMT Standard Time,  
Ron.Howe@xxxxxxxxxxx.gov.uk writes:

Don't  get overexcited ... as Chris pointed out and, IN THE CASE OF PERRIN 
AND THAT  CASE ONLY, this is about the word 'necessary', suggesting that the 
removal of  the tree cannot be described as necessary, because it was not the 
only  solution. what is necessary is to mitigate in a reasonable fashion and 
it  
still doesn't excuse the tree owner from being responsible or liable for the  
damage ... in the case of Perrin.




Yeah, a bit of reflection and I'd sort of realised that thanks Ron/Chris.  
But it's a step in the right direction and a tacit acknolwedgement that  
perhaps 
trees and buildings are not in predetermined conflict.
 
My concern has never been purely about trees but also about property owners  
not getting a 'real' solution and possibly about Surveyors, Insurers and  
Solicitors wriggling out of their responsibilities, when they should know  
better, 
or at least show a little more caution.
 
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/