Are SCC/Amey out of control?

[dave_the_m]

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.

 

Presumably STAG has received different legal advice.

[Cyclone]

The legal situation appears to be that they cannot be on or over private property without permission. If they can remove a branch without going over the private property themselves, then that would be lawful.

However it would be impossible for them to set up the safety barriers below, which are legally required, without trespassing.

So they are either trespassing or breaking H&S laws by not setting up safety zones.

[ENG601PM]

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.

 

No, YOU are incorrect. If the they can remove their tree without crossing the boundary to your property it is fine, but good luck removing the overhanging branches of a large tree without crossing the boundary.

 

---------- Post added 14-12-2017 at 13:20 ----------

 

The legal situation appears to be that they cannot be on or over private property without permission. If they can remove a branch without going over the private property themselves, then that would be lawful.

However it would be impossible for them to set up the safety barriers below, which are legally required, without trespassing.

So they are either trespassing or breaking H&S laws by not setting up safety zones.

 

It is indeed trespassing, but there are no specific H&S law that require a safety barrier. The barriers are to stop bystanders making it unsafe.

Edited December 14, 2017 by ENG601PM

[Cyclone]

I don't think there is a law that says "when cutting down a tree there must be a barrier".

 

However they clearly feel that they need them, as they've been erecting them for every tree felling operation and taken high court action to stop protesters encroaching on the exclusion area.

 

---------- Post added 14-12-2017 at 13:30 ----------

 

It would appear to be basically impossible to conform to this

 

http://www.hse.gov.uk/treework/site-management/public-access.htm

 

If working over private property, without permission and thus no ability to post barriers, personnel or warning signs to stop public access (the landowners) into the risk zone.

[Guest makapaka]

No, YOU are incorrect. If the they can remove their tree without crossing the boundary to your property it is fine, but good luck removing the overhanging branches of a large tree without crossing the boundary.

 

---------- Post added 14-12-2017 at 13:20 ----------

 

 

It is indeed trespassing, but there are no specific H&S law that require a safety barrier. The barriers are to stop bystanders making it unsafe.

 

You’ve said I’m incorrect and then confirmed what i said....

[spilldig]

I haven't assumed that at all. I suggested it as a (sort of) joking comment! I'm not too sure which of my posts have been incorrect.....

 

What evidence do you have? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just genuinely baffled after all the information that is available why anyone wouldn't have a negative view of Amey.

 

They seem indefensible, yet one or two people DO defend them. In the interests of fair comments and hearing both sides, I'm trying to work out why someone would defend them in the face of all that information.

 

So, anything you can point to as to why Amey or this mysterious contract ISN'T a disaster I think should be brought to people's attention, in order that the discussion be fair and not just an exchange of opinions.

 

 

 

Someone may defend them because they are being prevented from doing their job.

[neeeeeeeeeek]

Someone may defend them because they are being prevented from doing their job.

 

For reference that quote wasn't mine, I didn't type it. The quote thing seems to be playing up.

[paula4sheff]

it was my quote.

 

I think that's an odd reason to defend- especially as they are operating outside of the law.

[Guest makapaka]

it was my quote.

 

I think that's an odd reason to defend- especially as they are operating outside of the law.

 

How are they operating outside of the law?

[Bargepole23]

Someone may defend them because they are being prevented from doing their job.

 

Or some may defend the outcomes of some of their actions i.e. problematic trees removed, whilst not being in favour of the methods by which they are achieved.