Overhanging bushes opposite long term moorings : Great mysteries of the world part 103

[Justin Smith]

There were loads of bushes and trees badly overhanging the Oxford canal on our latest trip, some were (literally) over half way across the cut, even on blind bends. The CRT employee we asked about it basically said they didn't have time to do much of that and "most was done by the volunteers". We tried cutting back any we could reach either whilst cruising or moored, remembering that Chairman Mao was right : "even a thousand mile journey starts with one step" !

But what I really cannot understand is why the owners of boats on long term moorings don't trim back the overgrown bushes opposite them. That vegetation is forcing all passing boats much nearer to theirs, even more so when two boats have to pass, and that greatly increases the chances of their boats getting hit. Does it not also increase the wash effect from those passing boats ?

I do not understand it at all, one would have thought pure self interest would encourage them to trim the stuff back.....

Edited June 3, 2021 by Justin Smith

[Hudds Lad]

Where do you get rid of the trimmings though? Amazing how much you end up with unless you have a chipper to deal with it all.

[Athy]

6 minutes ago, Hudds Lad said:

Where do you get rid of the trimmings though? Amazing how much you end up with unless you have a chipper to deal with it all.

Doesn't the law require that you put them on the land from which they came?

The long long-term moorings at Fenny Compton used to be amongst the problematical sites of which Justin speaks, but they were substantially trimmed back a couple of years ago - whether by CART or by the moorers I don't know.

[doratheexplorer]

29 minutes ago, Athy said:

Doesn't the law require that you put them on the land from which they came?

 

No

[Athy]

20 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

No

That surprises me: the branches belong to the person on whose land the tree is growing, so is it not theft to take them away?

Edited June 3, 2021 by Athy

[tree monkey]

14 minutes ago, Athy said:

That surprises me: the branches belong to the person on whose land the tree is growing, so is it not theft to take them away?

Dora is right, the law says you should or must (not sure which exactly) offer the debris to the owner of the trees, if they refuse to take it the responsibility is yours to dispose of properly 

1 hour ago, Justin Smith said:

There were loads of bushes and trees badly overhanging the Oxford canal on our latest trip, some were (literally) over half way across the cut, even on blind bends. The CRT employee we asked about it basically said they didn't have time to do much of that and "most was done by the volunteers". We tried cutting back any we could reach either whilst cruising or moored, remembering that Chairman Mao was right : "even a thousand mile journey starts with one step" !

But what I really cannot understand is why the owners of boats on long term moorings don't trim back the overgrown bushes opposite them. That vegetation is forcing all passing boats much nearer to theirs, even more so when two boats have to pass, and that greatly increases the chances of their boats getting hit. Does it not also increase the wash effect from those passing boats ?

I do not understand it at all, one would have thought pure self interest would encourage them to trim the stuff back.....

Strictly speaking they shouldn't, CRT can because they are the landowner and they have the legal right to remove back to the boundary, this assumes the veg is 3rd party.

 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Athy

[Athy]

13 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Dora is right, the law says you should or must (not sure which exactly) offer the debris to the owner of the trees, if they refuse to take it the responsibility is yours to dispose of properly 

 

 

Thanks for your expert clarification. So, she and I could both be right depending on the circumstances - if I take the debris away without asking the landowner I'm committing a crime, if I take it away because the landowner doesn't want it, I'm not.

[robtheplod]

So if a boater cuts a branch thats in the way legally they need to call CRT and ask if they want it?  Maybe this is one of those tiimes where common sense takes over and you pop it on the bank safely?

[Athy]

1 minute ago, robtheplod said:

So if a boater cuts a branch thats in the way legally they need to call CRT and ask if they want it?  Maybe this is one of those tiimes where common sense takes over and you pop it on the bank safely?

Yes. I've certainly done it a few times, and have felt that I was improving the navigation for other boaters, as they could now see where they were going. The weeping willow in the narrows below Cropredy lock has often received a quick snip with clippers as we've gone through.

[doratheexplorer]

1 hour ago, Athy said:

Thanks for your expert clarification. So, she and I could both be right depending on the circumstances - if I take the debris away without asking the landowner I'm committing a crime, if I take it away because the landowner doesn't want it, I'm not.

Your original suggestion was that the law required you to put the on the land they came from.  That's not right.  But it's not really relevant here, because the thread is about pruning back trees which aren't overhanging the pruner's land.  The examples you're giving relate to two pieces of private land with a tree growing on one side and overhanging the other. It's CRT land and technically the overhanging branches are the responsibility of CRT, irrespective of whether the tree is growing from CRT land or not, as they may be causing a restriction to the navigation or an overhead hazard.  So by pruning back branches overhanging the canal, you could (in theory) land yourself in trouble with CRT.  I very much doubt they'd be all that bothered though, except in a couple of respects:

 

1.  What happens if the person injures themselves while pruning?  CRT may be concerned that they'd bear some responsibility.

2.  The method/timing of pruning could disturb nests, in breach of the Wildlife Act 1981.

3.  The canal sometimes passes through SSSIs, SINCs etc. where protection against pruning trees may be higher.

Edited June 3, 2021 by doratheexplorer

[Rob-M]

I think some boaters like to moor near the over hanging vegetation as it causes other boats to slow down.  On the way in to Rugeley there is a particularly bad willow that often has a boat moored by it that means any passing boats have to go straight through the willow as it almost touches the water.

[doratheexplorer]

2 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

I think some boaters like to moor near the over hanging vegetation as it causes other boats to slow down.  they don't give a damn. On the way in to Rugeley there is a particularly bad willow that often has a boat moored by it that means any passing boats have to go straight through the willow as it almost touches the water.

FIFY ?

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, Athy said:

Yes. I've certainly done it a few times, and have felt that I was improving the navigation for other boaters, as they could now see where they were going. The weeping willow in the narrows below Cropredy lock has often received a quick snip with clippers as we've gone through.

I had a red eye for over 2 weeks following a trip through them a few years back

[zenataomm]

If you start doing others' work then it sets a precedent, guess whose responsibility it then becomes?

Are you a road user?

How many potholes have you filled in recently? 

Would you trespass onto someone's garden to trim their unruly privet that is encroaching on the pavement?

[tree monkey]

3 hours ago, Athy said:

Thanks for your expert clarification. So, she and I could both be right depending on the circumstances - if I take the debris away without asking the landowner I'm committing a crime, if I take it away because the landowner doesn't want it, I'm not.

Basically yes

2 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

Your original suggestion was that the law required you to put the on the land they came from.  That's not right.  But it's not really relevant here, because the thread is about pruning back trees which aren't overhanging the pruner's land.  The examples you're giving relate to two pieces of private land with a tree growing on one side and overhanging the other. It's CRT land and technically the overhanging branches are the responsibility of CRT, irrespective of whether the tree is growing from CRT land or not, as they may be causing a restriction to the navigation or an overhead hazard.  So by pruning back branches overhanging the canal, you could (in theory) land yourself in trouble with CRT.  I very much doubt they'd be all that bothered though, except in a couple of respects:

 

1.  What happens if the person injures themselves while pruning?  CRT may be concerned that they'd bear some responsibility.

2.  The method/timing of pruning could disturb nests, in breach of the Wildlife Act 1981.

3.  The canal sometimes passes through SSSIs, SINCs etc. where protection against pruning trees may be higher.

Spot on

3 hours ago, robtheplod said:

So if a boater cuts a branch thats in the way legally they need to call CRT and ask if they want it?  Maybe this is one of those tiimes where common sense takes over and you pop it on the bank safely?

And in the end, it comes down to this just a bit of pragmatism.

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, zenataomm said:

If you start doing others' work then it sets a precedent, guess whose responsibility it then becomes?

Are you a road user?

How many potholes have you filled in recently? 

Would you trespass onto someone's garden to trim their unruly privet that is encroaching on the pavement?

There was a damn great pothole in the road just by the end of our lane which made it almost impossible to cycle into our lane safely. So I bunged some rubble and cement in it.

Here's a useless fact. When outback Australian towns were being developed, it was the householder's responsibility to pave and  maintain the road immediately in front of their house. Result was, apparently, interesting. (I say this is a fact.  I read it somewhere many years ago, so it may be a myth after all...)

Edited June 3, 2021 by Arthur Marshall

[cuthound]

5 hours ago, tree monkey said:

Dora is right, the law says you should or must (not sure which exactly) offer the debris to the owner of the trees, if they refuse to take it the responsibility is yours to dispose of properly 

Strictly speaking they shouldn't, CRT can because they are the landowner and they have the legal right to remove back to the boundary, this assumes the veg is 3rd party.

 

 

Perhaps CRT should do what BT did when I worked there  (and probsbly still do) regarding 3rd party owned trees threatening their infrastructure.

 

They would write to the owner giving them 30 days to cut the trees back, and if they didn't,  BT would cut them back and bill the owner.

[matty40s]

I trim the overhanging Willow at Weedon Wharf winding hole twice a year. I stick the nose against the bank, tiller over, walk forward and trim the branches to head height from the roof of the boat. Once the boat is ready to reverse off, that's the trim finished, so no body loses aerials, chimneys, other stuff.

I try to get as much of the debris on top of the boat(a little invariably falls in), and bring it back, sticking it with the other vegetation rubbish on the bonfire pit. The house owner is absolutely fine with me doing it, as he cant reach and is too old to do it any more from the roof of his boat. CRT have never done it.

[tree monkey]

6 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Perhaps CRT should do what BT did when I worked there  (and probsbly still do) regarding 3rd party owned trees threatening their infrastructure.

 

They would write to the owner giving them 30 days to cut the trees back, and if they didn't,  BT would cut them back and bill the owner.

BT as a statutory undertaker have a legal right to prune trees to clear their network in the same way that the power line operators do, CRT don't have the same legal weight behind their rights to maintain the network.

 

In my experience BT are absolutely useless where trees are in conflict with their  network, maybe things were better managed where you were based

[cuthound]

2 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

BT as a statutory undertaker have a legal right to prune trees to clear their network in the same way that the power line operators do, CRT don't have the same legal weight behind their rights to maintain the network.

 

In my experience BT are absolutely useless where trees are in conflict with their  network, maybe things were better managed where you were based

 

Yes I notice that the trees opposite my house have encroached onto the telephone lines in thev ast couple of years, whereas before they were regularly pruned.

Edited June 3, 2021 by cuthound

[Tacet]

For all Health & Safety edicts we should ask : exactly how much safer will this make us ? 

[Justin Smith]

On 03/06/2021 at 12:54, ditchcrawler said:

I had a red eye for over 2 weeks following a trip through them a few years back

I had a pair of prescription sunglasses worth well over £100 flicked off into the cut by an overhanging bush on the Lancaster last year. VERY UPSETTING......

On 03/06/2021 at 19:48, Tacet said:

For all Health & Safety edicts we should ask : exactly how much safer will this make us ? 

Where am I suggesting any laws to restrict people's freedoms ?

[Justin Smith]

On 03/06/2021 at 12:42, Rob-M said:

I think some boaters like to moor near the over hanging vegetation as it causes other boats to slow down.  On the way in to Rugeley there is a particularly bad willow that often has a boat moored by it that means any passing boats have to go straight through the willow as it almost touches the water.

I had not thought of that.

But doesn't a boat going closer to you create more of a wash effect and less when it's further away ? Or is that only on a wider waterway ?

But I suppose it comes down to how concerned you are about being hit by another boat, especially on a bend.

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, Justin Smith said:

 

But I suppose it comes down to how concerned you are about being hit by another boat, especially on a bend.

Have people started mooring on bends now?  ?

[Justin Smith]

22 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Have people started mooring on bends now?  ?

Down the Oxford there was a private boat moored on the outside of a bend with a tree overhanging half way across just opposite it. Possibly the worst mooring I've seen for a long while.