Are SCC/Amey out of control?

[dave_the_m]

Why were people refusing oversail rights if the trees were just being pruned and not cut down?

 

The trees are being cut down. The "prune" was just a pre-emptive strike to remove parts of the tree that was hard for them to remove legally. They will then come back during the day some time and legally cut down the rest of the tree. A third of the cherry trees on Abbeydale Park Rise are scheduled to be removed.

[Guest makapaka]

The trees are being cut down. The "prune" was just a pre-emptive strike to remove parts of the tree that was hard for them to remove legally. They will then come back during the day some time and legally cut down the rest of the tree. A third of the cherry trees on Abbeydale Park Rise are scheduled to be removed.

 

What would happen if they cut down the tree without pruning the oversailing branches?

[dave_the_m]

What would happen if they cut down the tree without pruning the oversailing branches?

 

I don't understand what you mean. Trees in a street are removed by progressively hacking bits off and dropping or lowering them to the ground. You can't remove the tree without removing the overhanging bits. And removing the overhanging bits is illegal.

 

A few months ago, one of Amey's contractors did fell a whole tree in a single cut - where you cut the base and the whole tree falls down intact, like you might do in a forest. This was highly illegal and Amey were served with a contravention notice from the Heath and Safety Executive, which is basically an "if you do this again we will prosecute" warning.

[Guest makapaka]

I don't understand what you mean. Trees in a street are removed by progressively hacking bits off and dropping or lowering them to the ground. You can't remove the tree without removing the overhanging bits. And removing the overhanging bits is illegal.

 

A few months ago, one of Amey's contractors did fell a whole tree in a single cut - where you cut the base and the whole tree falls down intact, like you might do in a forest. This was highly illegal and Amey were served with a contravention notice from the Heath and Safety Executive, which is basically an "if you do this again we will prosecute" warning.

 

Okay.

 

So once a tree oversails a private property the council can do nothing to remove it without permission from the property owner? Regardless of whether the tree needs to be removed or not and if the tree is in a public highway?

[Phili Buster]

You replied to the posts but never gave answers . "More details " they came out at 4.30 in the morning and cut off oversailing branches which they had no right to do as they were on private property . Can that be made any clearer to you ?

 

They should be made to come back and replace all the oversailing branches that were cut off. Gorilla glue would seem to be a good adhesive but other glues are available

 

If they are insistent that a tree must be removed, perhaps next time they should cut down the tree but leave the oversailing branches in place suspended in mid air

[dave_the_m]

Okay.

 

So once a tree oversails a private property the council can do nothing to remove it without permission from the property owner? Regardless of whether the tree needs to be removed or not and if the tree is in a public highway?

 

That is my understanding, yes. It isn't normally an issue, since councils just assume they have implied permission, and most people wouldn't object after the fact.

 

They can of course always apply for a court order against an obstinate property owner.

[onewheeldave]

Okay.

 

So once a tree oversails a private property the council can do nothing to remove it without permission from the property owner? Regardless of whether the tree needs to be removed or not and if the tree is in a public highway?

 

They did remove the overhanging bits, so clearly they can (and are) doing. But, they're breaking the rules/good practice/law. They're the council, and do it routinely, and, get away with it.

[Guest makapaka]

That is my understanding, yes. It isn't normally an issue, since councils just assume they have implied permission, and most people wouldn't object after the fact.

 

They can of course always apply for a court order against an obstinate property owner.

 

I thought it was if they wish to encroach airspace above a property?

 

So it wouldn't matter if the branch oversailed the property so long as they didn't encroach the airspace above the property to remove it?

[dave_the_m]

ISo it wouldn't matter if the branch oversailed the property so long as they didn't encroach the airspace above the property to remove it?

 

I believe they can't remove branches overhanging into your property even if the arb doesn't physically enter the space above your garden. I am, however, not a lawyer.

[Guest makapaka]

I believe they can't remove branches overhanging into your property even if the arb doesn't physically enter the space above your garden. I am, however, not a lawyer.

 

No you’re incorrect.

 

You can’t accuse someone of trespassing if they are not encroaching your property to remove a tree that isn’t yours.