UKTC Archive

Boundary trees - exact definition on the ground

Subject: Boundary trees - exact definition on the ground
From: Julian Dunster
Date: Dec 29 2016 18:08:10
Happy holidays to all.

I am in the process of rewriting /Arboriculture and the Law in Canada/ and have a specific question for the UK team. I have a copy (1st edition) of Mynors and am well aware of the case law such as Lemmon, Leakey etc. and associated issues. I am researching a very specific point in that general area of thought.

A 2013 case in Ontario, Canada decided that determining if a tree did or did not cross the property line should not be decided on where the base of the tree was, but on the location of the trunk relative to the boundary line. That may have been driven in part by Ontario Forestry Act which defines trees with a *trunk* on the boundary as trees jointly owned. The court did not specify where on the trunk such a determination should be made. In a case in British Columbia the court then took the notion of trunk and accepted dbh as the reference point.

My questions for the team .........

1 In the UK how do you determine if a tree has or has not grown past the property line?

2    Is it based on where the tree meets the ground or some other point?

3 If it is not the base of the tree, is there generally accepted practice about where the determining point ought to be?

4    If it is a trunk how do you deal with leaning trees?

Ideally, case law citations would be helpful rather than notional ideas of what seems right.

Thanks for any insights offered.



On Behalf of Dunster and Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd.

Dr. Julian A Dunster R.P.F., R.P.P.., M.C.I.P., ISA Certified Arborist,
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist # 378,
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
BC Wildlife Danger Tree Assessor
Honourary Life Member ISA + PNWISA

North American distributor for Rinntech

The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees