Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
tats

Canal tree responsibility. Who?

Featured Posts

8 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

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.

This, do this and get a qualified tree surveyor,  not a just a tree surgeon, nothing against tree surgeons, I was one

Just now, tats said:

Tree monkey, who is responsible for the branches over the water?

The landowner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tree monkey, thanks. Maybe it has ash die back an needs cutting down. Leans against the land. Keep stove going for years. That's settled it.

 

Other things. Having some beers now. Got to watch Soylent Green. Told it really good, but not too impressed. Keep falling asleep, me twice she once. But have to do it coz she's determined.  Venus looks amazing tonight but not as amazing as that one just to the left, flashing red green blue. Sirrus, I think. All the very breast for the future pal. Cheers for the straight answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, tats said:

Maybe it has ash die back an needs cutting down. Leans against the land. Keep stove going for years. That's settled it.

 

It's your tree isn't it ... :detective:

 

You are right though - a big lump of ash like that is a wonderful thing to have in the logstore. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Biscuits. It's not my tree, but the owner is lovely and fair lady and don't want to cause her trouble. It'll come down, I think. It's just a damn big thing. I'm engineer and and can see can be done, but need some balls :) pal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

It's your tree isn't it ... :detective:

 

You are right though - a big lump of ash like that is a wonderful thing to have in the logstore. :)

 

Crossed my mind ;)

 

If it's as big as reported it's likely hollow.

 

@tats bung some photos up and a will give a general idea

2 minutes ago, tats said:

The Biscuits. It's not my tree, but the owner is lovely and fair lady and don't want to cause her trouble. It'll come down, I think. It's just a damn big thing. I'm engineer and and can see can be done, but need some balls :) pal

I have a lot of respect for engineers but tree work requires a different skill set, do be careful or employ someone who does have the skills

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tree monkey. I might put photos up, n with it coming down. It's not hollow. but it is massive, really massive. Deadly. It needs a tree surgeon, which means it needs licence which means cost and trouble..........or........but it is very scary for a first timer at the beginning of a learning curve. maybe I just move along 50ft. There's a spot there. Maybe that is best. Simple as that. Someone mentioned that. Reckon that is best, to just go with the flow and roll with the punches

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@tats,

 

@tree monkey gets paid for looking at trees and deciding if they are dangerous or just need a bit of TLC.  Take a photo tomorrow if you don't have one, and stick it on here.

 

He's a good bloke, so he will look at the pic and tell you straight away if he would recommend a proper tree survey or not.  He is also dead right that the first tree you fell really must not be a big old ash, a foot from a canal and with boats moored under it!

 

The lovely lady you don't want to bother is still the person legally responsible for the tree, so if you decide just to move along a boat length, it will still be her problem if it does fall. 

 

If you fell it yourself without safety gear or permission then you are likely to be both civilly and criminally liable for anything if it goes badly wrong.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours 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.

When CaRT was being formed, I did try to suggest that the legislation should include  a clause that would impose the same duty on landowners next to a canal as those next to a road. Try owning a hedge next to a road with no footpath and see how soon you are approached by the highway authenticity. Sadly neither the government nor the boating organisations saw fit to support the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

When CaRT was being formed, I did try to suggest that the legislation should include  a clause that would impose the same duty on landowners next to a canal as those next to a road. Try owning a hedge next to a road with no footpath and see how soon you are approached by the highway authenticity. Sadly neither the government nor the boating organisations saw fit to support the idea.

Because the highways is covered by the highways act, I imagine to create new or extend the existing legislation would require a great deal of time for what is really a minor issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tree monkey said:

Because the highways is covered by the highways act, I imagine to create new or extend the existing legislation would require a great deal of time for what is really a minor issue

That was why I tried to raise it at that time as CaRT was being formed but there was pressure to make it as minimal as possible regardless of the need.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Fairly confident that's Fraxinus ornus, manna ash

Many thanks sir, I’ve passed that on :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tree monkey said:

Fairly confident that's Fraxinus ornus, manna ash

I preferred Bizzard's answer!

☺️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, David Mack said:

I preferred Bizzard's answer!

☺️

Me too but the arboreal simian’s reply was arguably more helpful ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, WotEver said:

Me too but the arboreal simian’s reply was arguably more helpful ;)

Arguably! ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tree monkey said:

Fairly confident that's Fraxinus ornus, manna ash

 

Not a triffid then? 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cuthound said:

 

Not a triffid then? 😁

Could be, trees do tend to work slowly so don't stand about too long

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • 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.