Impromptu haircut

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Or this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-57598101

 

That's *much* worse than back-garden Leylandii... 😞

 

And why? Ancient lights? Does next door have a vehicle taller than their garage?

[system 4-50]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

That's *much* worse than back-garden Leylandii... 😞

 

And why? Ancient lights? Does next door have a vehicle taller than their garage?

Not only the tree, they've chopped off the top of the street light as well!

[Machpoint005]

I suspect the "why" is "because they can".

 

[Hudds Lad]

42 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

I've often wondered why CRT or their contractors don't use a shallow draughted boat with a hedge cutter attached, similar to the ones farmers use to keep hedges tidy. After the initial cut back to remove the thickest branches, it would keep the offside vegetation under control with a trim one every year, which must be more cost effective than manually sawing through thick branches every few years which seems to be their present regime.

Insurance claims from moored boats?

We were getting water above Grindley Brook a few years back when the local farmer, i assume, rocked up and started cutting the hedge behind the water points with just such an attachment. I got hit by a chunk of hedge the width of my thumb (which left a nice bruise the next day) and the boat got blathered in bits of cuttings, the hire boat behind us were not so lucky and got a broken window  

[tree monkey]

8 hours ago, IanD said:

 

Except the last post looks incorrect, according to every reference I can find it doesn't matter how pretty the tree is, if it overhangs and is causing an obstruction CART can cut branches off it whether the tree owner likes it or not. Exactly this happened a couple of weeks ago two houses down the road from us where tree surgeons cut off all the tree branches overhanging the garden of a neighbour (who is frankly a complete PITA), leaving the tree looking hideous and unbalanced -- see photo.

 

(yes I know Leylandii are horrible, but that's not the point...)

 

It's obviously more sensible to try and contact the owner to sort things out and agree what should be done, but this is probably not easy -- maybe almost impossible -- along the canals, and even if you could find them most landowners wouldn't care anyway -- especially weeping willows which grow like weeds.

 

CRT have a right as landowners to cut back to property boundary, including roots( and offer the debris to landowners, if refused CRT are then responsible for proper disposal)

 

Where it can get complicated is if the work causes the tree to become unsafe in some way, difficult to define, unless of course the tree falls over soon after the work.

 

This right to boundary is less clear with TPO trees but still exists and often comes down to a legal  definition of nuisance, which is a term that causes a fair amount of debate.

 

Local government, statutory bodies and highways have more defined rights and clearer definitions of nuisance but I am not sure if CRT fits in any of those categories but the landowner prune to property boundary right still exist for CRT.

 

Strictly user's of the canal don't have those rights and technically shouldn't be engaged in pruning of private trees, I doubt anyone will notice or care someone snapping off a few twiggy bits obstructing navigation but my understanding is us as user's do not have the legal right in the same way as landowners so

 

 

 

5 hours ago, IanD said:

That's *much* worse than back-garden Leylandii... 😞

 

And why? Ancient lights? Does next door have a vehicle taller than their garage?

It was a neighbour dispute, just petty bickering 

4 hours ago, Hudds Lad said:

Insurance claims from moored boats?

We were getting water above Grindley Brook a few years back when the local farmer, i assume, rocked up and started cutting the hedge behind the water points with just such an attachment. I got hit by a chunk of hedge the width of my thumb (which left a nice bruise the next day) and the boat got blathered in bits of cuttings, the hire boat behind us were not so lucky and got a broken window  

Exactly this I would imagine, plus a flail has limits to the size of branches it can practically deal with.

[Chris Lowe]

You need one of these on top of your boats.

[Grassman]

When we do the offside vegetation cutting the weeping willows are always a problem because they need the actual branches cutting, but these are usually too high up to reach even with long reach cutters. So all we are able to do is give long hanging leaves a trim as far up as we can reach, but unfortunately they grow back so quickly.

17 hours ago, cuthound said:

 

I've often wondered why CRT or their contractors don't use a shallow draughted boat with a hedge cutter attached, similar to the ones farmers use to keep hedges tidy. After the initial cut back to remove the thickest branches, it would keep the offside vegetation under control with a trim one every year, which must be more cost effective than manually sawing through thick branches every few years which seems to be their present regime.

 

Small and shallow draughted boats would be far more mobile and would be able to be more easily moved from place to place, but they are difficult to do that kind of work from, especially with cutting tools because they aren't stable enough. However I have proposed to CRT that this winter instead of concentrating on cutting back everything on a certain section of canal we instead concentrate on the really bad places and thus be able to cover more miles of canal. So many sections of canals have fallen way behind their scheduled maintenance programme as we all know to our cost!

22 hours ago, Pie Eater said:

Does anyone bother to report them to CaRT?

 

This is the issue with things like vegetation and dredging. So many moan about it but very few bother to report/complain to CRT. A big factor with their decision making about where to carry out the work is based on locations where they have had the most complaints about. 

[Just Heaven]

On 10/07/2023 at 08:56, robtheplod said:

Hi All, we went on first mini cruise over this weekend since arriving at Tattenhall - into Chester.. Lovely trip.... only issue is there are some seriously overgrown weeping willows near the Cheshire Cat and in some other places - so much so you're going in blind and you feel like you're in some exotic Flake advert.

 

If i had some shears with me would it be permitted to give these haircuts or would the owner get upset/start getting all legal?

We often give willows a haircut.

 

See here :

 

 

[robtheplod]

Just had this back from CRT:

 

I'm so sorry to hear of this, thank you for bringing it to our attention. I'm afraid I don't believe boaters would be authorised to cut these, but I will pass this on to the local team now. Please await a further response once they have taken a look. 

[tree monkey]

31 minutes ago, robtheplod said:

Just had this back from CRT:

 

I'm so sorry to hear of this, thank you for bringing it to our attention. I'm afraid I don't believe boaters would be authorised to cut these, but I will pass this on to the local team now. Please await a further response once they have taken a look. 

I would have given a guarantee that would be the response,  they sort of have to say that, insurance liabilities aside we are not the landowners and it's the landowners who have the legal right to act.

 

 

[IanD]

22 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

I would have given a guarantee that would be the response,  they sort of have to say that, insurance liabilities aside we are not the landowners and it's the landowners who have the legal right to act.

 

 

True, but what would be the problem if they'd responded "If boaters wish to cut back obstructing and overhanging branches then CART will not raise any objection, but this is done entirely at their own risk with no liability on CART"?

 

In other words if you chop your own leg off or the landlord sues you for damaging his tree, it's your problem. But if in spite of this you want to help keep the canals usable, we won't stop you... 😉

[tree monkey]

37 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

True, but what would be the problem if they'd responded "If boaters wish to cut back obstructing and overhanging branches then CART will not raise any objection, but this is done entirely at their own risk with no liability on CART"?

 

In other words if you chop your own leg off or the landlord sues you for damaging his tree, it's your problem. But if in spite of this you want to help keep the canals usable, we won't stop you... 😉

To me that's fine but to a corporate body who is paranoid about liability that's never going to happen, plus technically it's illegal, unless CRT authorised every boater as a contractor, I suppose that would sort the insurance issue

 

[IanD]

18 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

To me that's fine but to a corporate body who is paranoid about liability that's never going to happen, plus technically it's illegal, unless CRT authorised every boater as a contractor, I suppose that would sort the insurance issue

 

Why is it technically illegal?

 

Genuine question, because I don't see how -- CART would specifically *not* be "authorising boaters to act as a contractor", in fact just the opposite.

 

They'd be saying "if you want to do this you won't get into any trouble with us, but it's entirely at your own risk if you get into trouble with the landlord because you don't own the canals -- or if you chop your own leg off".

Edited July 14, 2023 by IanD

[tree monkey]

16 minutes ago, IanD said:

Why is it technically illegal?

 

Genuine question, because I don't see how -- CART would specifically *not* be "authorising boaters to act as a contractor", in fact just the opposite.

 

They'd be saying "if you want to do this you won't get into any trouble with us, but it's entirely at your own risk if you get into trouble with the landlord because you don't own the canals -- or if you chop your own leg off".

OK, as I understand it, the landowner has the legal right to prune to boundary and contractors employed or authorised by the landowner or staff, random people/boaters don't fit either of those categories, so I probably shouldn't have used the word technically.

 

If CRT say go ahead but on your own head, they have no control on the extent or ability of those who take up the challenge, however much they hide behind the "on you own head" it would open up a liability nightmare, so it's far far safer to say no.

 

I am not saying don't do it, I am saying just don't ask CRT because they have to say no

 

Edited July 14, 2023 by tree monkey

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

OK, as I understand it, the landowner has the legal right to prune to boundary and contractors employed or authorised by the landowner or staff, random people/boaters don't fit either of those categories, so I probably shouldn't have used the word technically.

 

If CRT say go ahead but on your own head, they have no control on the extent or ability of those who take up the challenge, however much they hide behind the "on you own head" it would open up a liability nightmare, so it's far far safer to say no.

 

I am not saying don't do it, I am saying just don't ask CRT because they have to say no

 

 

AFAIK there's a difference in law between saying "go ahead and do this" and "We are not authorising you to do this because you don't have the legal right to do it, but won't take action against you if you do -- but the landowner very well might, so we don't recommend it".

 

If you warn somebody that they aren't authorised to do something and they do it anyway, whose problem/liability is it? Not CARTs I would have thought but IANAL... 😉

 

It just seems to me that helpful boaters would probably do a much better job of controlling overhanging branches than CART ever do, and probably at less risk than using a chainsaw to chop up logs for their woodburning stove... 🙂

[Bod]

Given that C&RT lay claim to 2 metres of the off-side bank, along most of the canals, then 90%+ of the vegetation  is the responsibility of the Trust.

 

Bod

[cuthound]

CRT should do what BT used to do when a land owners trees threatened to.damage the overhead the telephone lines.

 

They sent them a letter giving them 30 days to cut the trees back, and if they failed, BT then  employed a contractor to prune them, sending the bill plus a hefty markup to the landowner.

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, Bod said:

Given that C&RT lay claim to 2 metres of the off-side bank, along most of the canals,

No they don't. It varies from one canal to another where the offside boundary is, but in many cases it is at the water's edge. Indeed, in a number of areas bank erosion has resulted in the canal getting wider, and in such areas landowners may technically be able to require CRT to reinstate their land to the original boundary.

[tree monkey]

39 minutes ago, cuthound said:

CRT should do what BT used to do when a land owners trees threatened to.damage the overhead the telephone lines.

 

They sent them a letter giving them 30 days to cut the trees back, and if they failed, BT then  employed a contractor to prune them, sending the bill plus a hefty markup to the landowner.

I have never seen BT do that,  I do appreciate you have more experience with BT than I do though 

Edited July 14, 2023 by tree monkey

[ditchcrawler]

36 minutes ago, cuthound said:

CRT should do what BT used to do when a land owners trees threatened to.damage the overhead the telephone lines.

 

They sent them a letter giving them 30 days to cut the trees back, and if they failed, BT then  employed a contractor to prune them, sending the bill plus a hefty markup to the landowner.

Now days they wait until they bring the lines down and then run a new bit of cable 6 weeks later

[tree monkey]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

 

AFAIK there's a difference in law between saying "go ahead and do this" and "We are not authorising you to do this because you don't have the legal right to do it, but won't take action against you if you do -- but the landowner very well might, so we don't recommend it".

 

If you warn somebody that they aren't authorised to do something and they do it anyway, whose problem/liability is it? Not CARTs I would have thought but IANAL... 😉

 

It just seems to me that helpful boaters would probably do a much better job of controlling overhanging branches than CART ever do, and probably at less risk than using a chainsaw to chop up logs for their woodburning stove... 🙂

Which is basically what I have been saying, CRT will never approve random bods cutting trees officially because they can't, so best not ask them and just get on with it

1 minute ago, ditchcrawler said:

Now days they wait until they bring the lines down and then run a new bit of cable 6 weeks later

And that's my experience, tell a lie I do remember someone surveying for BT, lasted about 6 months and never went any further 

[cuthound]

1 minute ago, tree monkey said:

I have never seen BT do that

 

For a short time I worked in a local office with several other groups, one of which was responsible for identifying land owners whose trees were threatening BT's overhead lines. 

 

They dealt with several tree issues per day and usually the land owner only got charged once. After being stung with the contractors marked up bill, they rarely ignored their trees a second time...

 

Perhaps it was a London thing?

[tree monkey]

Just now, cuthound said:

 

For a short time I worked in a local office with several other groups, one of which was responsible for identifying land owners whose trees were threatening BT's overhead lines. 

 

They dealt with several tree issues per day and usually the land owner only got charged once. After being stung with the contractors marked up bill, they rarely ignored their trees a second time...

 

Perhaps it was a London thing?

I do know BT has statutory powers to do this but it's certainly not something I never saw, shame it would have been something else I could have done, a lot less scary than powerlines

[cuthound]

22 minutes ago, David Mack said:

No they don't. It varies from one canal to another where the offside boundary is, but in many cases it is at the water's edge. Indeed, in a number of areas bank erosion has resulted in the canal getting wider, and in such areas landowners may technically be able to require CRT to reinstate their land to the original boundary.

 

When I bought my canalside house on the Coventry Canal I specifically asked my solicitor to look into ownership, maintenance and access of the bank.

 

The response I got was that they own the concrete piling and are responsible for its maintenance but I have to allow them access to the metre of my garden adjacent to the canal.

15 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Now days they wait until they bring the lines down and then run a new bit of cable 6 weeks later

 

I think that with VOIP (voice over internet protocol) supposedly imminent, they have adopted a policy of not maintaining anything that will soon be obsolete because it is cheaper to fix the odd failure than maintain things shortly to be sidelined. 

 

Knowing BT they will have got rid of the group I mentioned earlier, to save the wage costs, given that there will be fewer overhead cables to maintain once VOIP is fully implemented.

Edited July 14, 2023 by cuthound
phat phingers

[ditchcrawler]

41 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

 

Knowing BT they will have got rid of the group I mentioned earlier, to save the wage costs, given that there will be fewer overhead cables to maintain once VOIP is fully implemented.

Don't trees break Fibre Optics. The did survey and trim the trees with a line of site between poles before stringing them up, but no maintenance. One up from me now hang between the first and third pole, the fixing on the second being snapped off by trees.