Jump to content

Canal tree responsibility. Who?


tats
 Share

Featured Posts

2 minutes ago, tats said:

Tree monkey. Of course that is not what  want. You know this. I realize it is a massive problem for CRT. The least they can do is get somewhere pronto when they have been alerted......BUT they are not. That is the problem. It should be a top priority. They should be geared up better. Fast action teams to quickly no fuss sort it......when it really is dangerous. Of course, all the trees. But that is the nature of their business, not just the water channel. Trees are a big part of it. To just have a policy of not taking responsibility and then waiting for em to fall down and just clear 'em. Not good enough. I don't expect perfection. I'm reasonable and pragmatic. But they should at least do what they can, the obvious ones......but they are going too far shirking even these. 

 

Could it be......could it be....wait for it......dare I say it.......that something which should cost (if set up right) £100 is costing £1,000?   Could that be the problem? Maybe the quality and cost of all works should be objectively checked and audited. But this is not my place. I shouldn't have to be the one to suggest this. It's not my job. All I can say is that summat ain't right to dodge a knowingly dangerous tree which can kill. 

If it's a 3rd party tree it's not up to CRT to deal with it, it's up to the landowner. 

CRT or their contractors can with agreement with the landowner work on their property if necessary but either.

 

The landowner is being difficult 

 

The tree isn't as dangerous as portrayed 

 

The works are planned but not as an emergency 

 

CRT have possibly fecked up

 

Just because someone told you it's dangerous doesn't mean it is, yes it might be, but I get told about dangerous trees all the time and as it's my job to inspect them 99% of them are basically fine.

 

If the tree isn't an immediate threat it is borderline impossible to access 3rd party property without prior agreement, even for organisations like highway/railtrack, the maximum they can do without jumping through hoops is prune back to boundary from CRT properly 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, tats said:

There is an ash tree, an old and massive thing right beside my private mooring  and only a foot from the canal water, and opposite the towpath. I have always been concerned, especially as I could see that big branches had broken off in years before my time there. I hangs not just over my boat, but also the canal. It's a mighty big old thing with high branches weighing tons and tons. Serious stuff of the first order, obvious to anyone. In fact it is chilling. I try to move the boat in gale season. Anyway, a couple of years ago a branch came down. Massive. Missed my boat as it came from the other side of the tree's canopy, and missed my mate's boat by 6 inches and blocked the canal, and we cleared it. I decided to try and get it sorted. I saw two tree surgeons engaged on CRT work. They told me to inform CRT and to be sure to tell them that it is dangerous, then the work will be done quickly. So I rang CRT and told them. They took a note of my call to pass it on to the appropriate department. The appropriate department got back to me saying it had been looked at and needed doing and that they would contact the landowner for permission to do the work, and that everything was in process. The next I heard was from another department, the moorings department, and they said that it wasn't down to CRT and I would have to ask the landowner to do the work. I said that it was dangerous for me and also boaters travelling by as it hung well over half way over the water. To that they said that if I insisted than they would make moves to shut down the whole mooring. So I just left it and wondered how else I could do something. CRT just washed their hands of it and threatened me away. A year later a massive branch fell and hit my mooring and smashed a hole in my boat and broke windows and blocked the canal, which we cleared.

 

So I ask you, is CRT a professional responsible organization, and remember they take a mooring fee of hundreds to moor against private land, and when they have already charged a licence fee for the boat to be on the water. 

 

As an aside, I asked CRT about why they charge a mooring fee when I've already paid to be on the water, and was told that it was like having a car where you have your MOT and insurance and road tax, but then if you want to park you have to pay a car parking fee. I replied that I would if I was on a fee-charging car park, but not if I parked on the road because I'd already paid to be on the public highway. The reply was to forget that car analogy, and would I like the number of another department who might be able to answer. If they would sort dangerous trees I wouldn't mind paying a mooring fee to them, but they don't do anything for the money. It is wrong and unprofessional.

 

Thing is, ok, CRT is relatively new and finding their feet, that's fair enough, BUT it isn't good enough where damage and danger to life is concerned.

 

That tree was dangerous. I told them. They couldn't sort it. Not good enough, no where near. That worries me. Do they know what they are doing? Do they know how to know if work being done is up to scratch and to cost? Do they know the business they are in? Who are they, what is their qualification and experience? I mean, if you can't get that right, it makes you think. I don't have confidence in them. You pay a bill and then they ask you again, and then you tell them you've pad and they say, 'Oh, yes, I can see that now'. And not the first time, in fact it is actually expected. Believe me, I am not a grumbler. I'm too much the opposite for my own good. It takes a lot for me to speak out. It's shocking. Really bad. Needs to change. There is something wrong in the system. Danger should be taken seriously and taken care of...and it wasn't. THAT IS NOT GOOD, NOT GOOD AT ALL.

As the tree is so close to the water, less than 1 metre, it would pay to find out who actually owns the first metre from the waters edge.

In many areas The Trust do claim to own that metre of land.  "The Ransom Strip"

 

Bod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, tats said:

There is an ash tree, an old and massive thing right beside my private mooring  and only a foot from the canal water, and opposite the towpath.

 

I'm not clear on this - do you have an offside mooring right next to the tree, or do you have a towpath CRT mooring with the tree on the opposite side of the canal?

 

If the tree is right next to your offside mooring only a foot from the canal, then whoever owns the land you are tied to is responsible for the tree, and this is likely to be whoever you pay rent to for the mooring.  Unless you own the land, in which case it's you who is responsible for the tree.

 

15 hours ago, tats said:

I said that it was dangerous for me and also boaters travelling by as it hung well over half way over the water. To that they said that if I insisted than they would make moves to shut down the whole mooring.

 

If the tree isn't on CRT property, and you keep insisting it is dangerous, then the only thing CRT can do is prevent you mooring in the danger zone by cancelling the mooring rights at that location. 

 

They have no right to access the land and fell the tree, but they do have a duty of care to you to not let you moor in a dangerous spot.  Note that they don't have to find you an alternative mooring, just prevent you staying where you are!

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheBiscuits said:

They have no right to access the land and fell the tree, but they do have a duty of care to you to not let you moor in a dangerous spot. 

 

^^^This^^^

 

I think Mr Tats needs to have a proper think about this, and where it leads if he continues shouting about it. 

 

And TM's point about most reports turning out not to be dangerous at all. I bet most of the people reporting don't want to hear that, they just want the tree cut back to their satisfaction at no cost to themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

^^^This^^^

 

I think Mr Tats needs to have a proper think about this, and where it leads if he continues shouting about it. 

 

And TM's point about most reports turning out not to be dangerous at all. I bet most of the people reporting don't want to hear that, they just want the tree cut back to their satisfaction at no cost to themselves.

I have been making or trying to make this point for a while, it's fallen on deaf ears.

 

And yup I hear all the time "it's dangerous " and they rarely are, this one may actually be one of those but who knows, as always I need pictures, I like tree pictures 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

I have been making or trying to make this point for a while, it's fallen on deaf ears.

 

And yup I hear all the time "it's dangerous " and they rarely are, this one may actually be one of those but who knows, as always I need pictures, I like tree pictures 

 

I idly think this one is going to fall soon. It's right outside our drive. But I've been thinking that for 10 years!...... that's not snow. It's me cleaning the weeds from driveway during the lockdown and salt sprinkled to be wetted into joints as an experimental moss/weedkiller. Sort of thing you do when under house arrest.  ;)

 

 

 

20200412_131045_resized.jpg

Edited by mark99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mark99 said:

 

I idly think this one is going to fall soon. It's right outside our drive. But I've been thinking that for 10 years!...... that's not snow. It's me cleaning the weeds from driveway during the lockdown and salt sprinkled to be wetted into joints as an experimental moss/weedkiller. Sort of thing you do when under house arrest.  ;)

 

 

 

20200412_131045_resized.jpg

Looks reasonable condition tbh, has it lost a lump out of the top fairly recently 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mark99 said:

 

I idly think this one is going to fall soon. It's right outside our drive. But I've been thinking that for 10 years!...... that's not snow. It's me cleaning the weeds from driveway during the lockdown and salt sprinkled to be wetted into joints as an experimental moss/weedkiller. Sort of thing you do when under house arrest.  ;)

 

 

 

20200412_131045_resized.jpg

Healthy pines rarely fall over, nothing wrong with this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, BWM said:

Healthy pines rarely fall over, nothing wrong with this one.

They fall over all the time but that's normally after some forestry type has just removed the neighbouring block :)

 

So as not to cause a panic, this one looks ok from the picture 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tree monkey said:

They fall over all the time but that's normally after some forestry type has just removed the neighbouring block :)

 

So as not to cause a panic, this one looks ok from the picture 

Forestry grown/group planting very different to specimen trees, relying on the integrity of the neighbours. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are quite a few worse leaning Pines than that in the street. Even now and again one goes down. One went two weeks ago but it was only a tiddler. Will post a picture of the worst leaning one when out next walking the dog.

 

Our neighbours 3 doors up car was severely flattened + written off a couple years back. He was on hol and had a horrible suprise when he flew back.

 

The pine cones tumble down to my front door and get recycled.

 

I would not mind the timber off that pine. 

Edited by mark99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheBiscuits,  Forget who's land the tree is on. What matters is who's land is it over, for it is not just the trunk of the tree, it is the branches.

 

Now this will be age-old this question. The fact is that the land was there before the canal, for it is man-made, not natural like a river. So, when the deal was made centuries back to buy the land, was it then also decided who would be responsible for the branches overhanging the canal. My guess is that they left this blank, meaning that the land owners were not responsible for their branches over the canal, that would be assumed to be the canal owners responsibility who would have dealt with it by just accepting that a branch may kill someone (bad luck), or just to remove the fallen branch from the water.

 

CRT would have a real problem trying to make the landowner responsible for the overhanging branches because it was they (the canal bulders) who wanted to purchase the land for the canal to be built, so the responsibility would be with them, I would think, as it would be difficult to buy the land and make the landowner responsile. So I expect this question was never resolved. Hence the situation we have today. I ask, who s responsible for the branches over the waterway? But I will not get a definitive answer because there isn't one. 

 

This is a massive question. What is a canal? It is 25% the cut itself, 25% locks, 25% tow path, and 25% the trees overhanging the water and towpath. It is expensive. And so the fudge goes on. Trouble is that these are different times. This has to be addressed. These are paying pleasure users, so there is expectations of safety in that transaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an answer. This has to be that CRT do the work themselves with in-house specialist work teams under time and motion study so that they know their business, and only then do they use outside contractors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, tats said:

Forget who's land the tree is on.

[snip]

CRT would have a real problem trying to make the landowner responsible for the overhanging branches

[snip]

I ask, who s responsible for the branches over the waterway? But I will not get a definitive answer because there isn't one. 

 

The owner of the tree is the person whose land it grows out of.  The only dispute about this is if the tree is half on one side and half on the other of a boundary, like @Mike the Boilerman is having trouble with.

 

The owner of the land the tree grows out of is responsible for the tree and any damage it causes, even if it overhangs somebody else's land (or water!)

 

This is the definitive answer, but you are not accepting it, presumably because you do not like the answer.  That doesn't alter the facts though, even if it's inconvenient for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, tats said:

Bod, I reckon you have something there. That would make sense. I will think about how to look into that.

 

Land registry map search will (usually!) let you find who owns a piece of land.

 

It cost about six quid last time I used it, to get the title and the plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/04/2020 at 08:38, tree monkey said:

If it's a 3rd party tree it's not up to CRT to deal with it, it's up to the landowner. 

CRT or their contractors can with agreement with the landowner work on their property if necessary but either.

 

The landowner is being difficult 

 

The tree isn't as dangerous as portrayed 

 

The works are planned but not as an emergency 

 

CRT have possibly fecked up

 

Just because someone told you it's dangerous doesn't mean it is, yes it might be, but I get told about dangerous trees all the time and as it's my job to inspect them 99% of them are basically fine.

 

If the tree isn't an immediate threat it is borderline impossible to access 3rd party property without prior agreement, even for organisations like highway/railtrack, the maximum they can do without jumping through hoops is prune back to boundary from CRT properly 

Tree Monkey.   You must have missed it, but I said that the tree has dropped two massive branches already on two occasions, seriously big branches which both blocked the canal, other branches before them, and still more to go. I can understand you have to assume that I am 'making a mountain out of a mole hill'. But please assume that I am not. Not my style, pal. This one is right up there and doing it. Colossal. Existential. Gravely dangerous to passing boaters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, tats said:

TheBiscuits,  Forget who's land the tree is on. What matters is who's land is it over, for it is not just the trunk of the tree, it is the branches.

 

Now this will be age-old this question. The fact is that the land was there before the canal, for it is man-made, not natural like a river. So, when the deal was made centuries back to buy the land, was it then also decided who would be responsible for the branches overhanging the canal. My guess is that they left this blank, meaning that the land owners were not responsible for their branches over the canal, that would be assumed to be the canal owners responsibility who would have dealt with it by just accepting that a branch may kill someone (bad luck), or just to remove the fallen branch from the water.

 

CRT would have a real problem trying to make the landowner responsible for the overhanging branches because it was they (the canal bulders) who wanted to purchase the land for the canal to be built, so the responsibility would be with them, I would think, as it would be difficult to buy the land and make the landowner responsile. So I expect this question was never resolved. Hence the situation we have today. I ask, who s responsible for the branches over the waterway? But I will not get a definitive answer because there isn't one. 

 

This is a massive question. What is a canal? It is 25% the cut itself, 25% locks, 25% tow path, and 25% the trees overhanging the water and towpath. It is expensive. And so the fudge goes on. Trouble is that these are different times. This has to be addressed. These are paying pleasure users, so there is expectations of safety in that transaction.

This is my day job so ss had been said before, 

It's not CRTs tree

 

CRT has no rights to enter 3rd party land without consent.

 

The landowner is responsible for nuisance caused by their tree

 

The landowner is responsible for dangerous trees.

 

Any landowner can prune back to their boundary any overhanging trees but only to the boundary and only from their property, unless consent gained from the tree owner

 

Any person can engage contractors with the expertise to complete tree works, it is not something CRT have any particular skill in, they employ contractors 

 

The historic waffle is just that waffle

1 minute ago, tats said:

Tree Monkey.   You must have missed it, but I said that the tree has dropped two massive branches already on two occasions, seriously big branches which both blocked the canal, other branches before them, and still more to go. I can understand you have to assume that I am 'making a mountain out of a mole hill'. But please assume that I am not. Not my style, pal. This one is right up there and doing it. Colossal. Existential. Gravely dangerous to passing boaters.

Nope, I didn't miss it, trees drop branches big and small, it doesn't in itself make the tree dangerous, it might indicate the tree is dangerous but it in no way proves it's dangerous. 

 

I did suggest you employ a tree surveyor to have a look and if considered dangerous they could write a condition report to pass onto the tree owner, it's your boat beneath the tree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.