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/
