Fence line trees, pruning and general chat

[ROLLACOSTA]

Eric ,I beleive the oak never got touched,I explained the legal consequences to the client,and to my knowledge he saw the light..

As for 'detrimental' thats open to a lot of diffferant interpretations,to my thinking it would mean here, anything 'other' than BS3998 [British pruning standards]

What a magnificent tree in the pic..

 

[SteveBullman]

Sad part is some-one probably did cut it.

damm right they did, it was me!
made a good bit of loot on that job too!!
:hmm3grin2orange:

 

[Ekka]

No you didn't Stephen ....

... but I wonder, if you were subcontracting to ABC Trees and the crew pulls up, has a look, boss aint there ... what would you do?

 

[SteveBullman]

300 year oak trees like lee mentioned then definetly not.

 

[Ekka]

300 year oak trees like lee mentioned then definetly not.

And if it was say a 30' Leylandii thing intruding over the fence then what would you do?

 

[trevmcrev]

Ekka down here in Melb a council local law permit overides the commom right to whack back to fenceline. Most councils use a size criteria such as >50cm dia @ 1m high or 45cm dia @ 1.5 or 110cm circ @ base or similar. It'd be better if they were all uniform but at least we got sumthin unlike up there.

If over these sizes a permit to prune is needed and council will dictate that the overhanging branches may be REDUCED but not removed.

If the tree is under size, or the customer gets "Larry the Local Lopper" who doesnt give a stuff then they can hack it back however they want and even throw the chit back over the fence!!

Trev

 

[Ekka]

They're sensible regs Trev, I agree with that.

Does Larry the Lopper get in the chit for whacking it when it's protected?

 

[arboralliance]

Actually Ekka...

Hey Rolla

See we just dont have that here, the whole flamin place was only settled 220 years ago, but it would be a crying shame to cut that oak.

We do have that over here Ekka, our North American and European (cold/temperate climate) species were first planted as far back as 200 years ago and some certainly 100-150 years ago, I have been formulating a theorem based on the fact that we don't have a true dormant period here so potentially our 100-200 year old trees potentially have the same size and shape/structure as 300-600+ year old Northern hemisphere cousins because ours are constantly growing whereas the Northern Hemisphere species in their native environs can have up to 6 months dormancy every year...

 

[trevmcrev]

They're sensible regs Trev, I agree with that.

Does Larry the Lopper get in the chit for whacking it when it's protected?

Most of the councils dont come down hard enough, some are damm pissweak and let em get away with a slap on the wrist. One council though is dynamite on it. Big fines and also several criminal convictions though court, mostly for developers that blatantly disregard the laws coz they dont give a crap about a $5000 fine if they can fit an extra $1.5m townhouse on the block if a tree is gone.

Trev

 

[arboralliance]

Most of the councils dont come down hard enough, some are damm pissweak and let em get away with a slap on the wrist. One council though is dynamite on it. Big fines and also several criminal convictions though court, mostly for developers that blatantly disregard the laws coz they dont give a crap about a $5000 fine if they can fit an extra $1.5m townhouse on the block if a tree is gone.

Trev

The rest of Australia and in particular Brisbane could take a few pages out of many of Melbourne's City Councils reg's, I've had the pleasure of being on both sides of the fence having successfully defended and avoided 6 figure fines imposed by well intended Civil Engineers clueless about arboriculture but knee jerk reacting to the removal of something that "still has green leaves on it!" (some epicormic shoots on hollow trees threatening a house, E.ovata of all species.) and privy to the detail of 6 fig fines imposed on developers and private rsidents alike far far-in exces of $5000... ($150,000 - $250,000)

Though i still know of some shocking cases of deforestation and environmental vandalism at the hands of developers and owner builders alike all over Melbourne/Victoria...

 

[SteveBullman]

probably nothing. every situation is different though.....leylandi arent exactly specimen trees. i always try and tell the customer, if its there it may as well look half decent rather than hacking it back to the trunk.

 

[treeseer]

Most of the councils dont come down hard enough, some are damm pissweak and let em get away with a slap on the wrist. One council though is dynamite on it. Big fines and also several criminal convictions though court, mostly for developers that blatantly disregard the laws coz they dont give a crap about a $5000 fine if they can fit an extra $1.5m townhouse on the block if a tree is gone.Trev

Trev that describes town govts here. Most can't be bothered with enforcing their laws, and are fine withthe fraud of abetting lawbreakers. It'd be good to see some press coverage of the enforcement down there.

"And if it was say a 30' Leylandii thing intruding over the fence then what would you do?"

Eric, if your client wanted less overhang, s/he'd clip it early and often, to maintain the green. Trouble with conifers is, if you wait too long there is no green inside to cut to, and the screen is effectively lost.

 

[l2edneck]

Good info guys keep it comin.

Tree,check yer PM thx

 

[trevmcrev]

The rest of Australia and in particular Brisbane could take a few pages out of many of Melbourne's City Councils reg's, I've had the pleasure of being on both sides of the fence having successfully defended and avoided 6 figure fines imposed by well intended Civil Engineers clueless about arboriculture but knee jerk reacting to the removal of something that "still has green leaves on it!" (some epicormic shoots on hollow trees threatening a house, E.ovata of all species.) and privy to the detail of 6 fig fines imposed on developers and private rsidents alike far far-in exces of $5000... ($150,000 - $250,000)

Though i still know of some shocking cases of deforestation and environmental vandalism at the hands of developers and owner builders alike all over Melbourne/Victoria...

Yeah some of the developers are bad, i've done a few expert witness jobs for VCAT hearings and some of them do get thier now and then.:hmm3grin2orange:

 

[Ekka]

I'll start this post by saying ...

I was not the guy that did this job.

Remember the first pic of this thread? Well, that job's been done but I'll embed the first pic below and appearing in order will be the new cut look and then a close up of the stubs and flush cuts by the contractor who did it.

See, you want to debate about how I cut, there's no debate!

 

[treeseer]

So the people in the white house on the right wanted a longer view? after losing that much crown, the stubs are a minor problem imo, depending on the species and the probable response.

Too bad the owner and the arborist could not have reached a more tree-friendly compromise.

 

[Ekka]

I bet it aint over yet.

Wait till that pool is full and the filter gets blocked with leaves and fruit from that tree .... then wait till he realises a chunk of his view from that deck is also lost coz of that tree.

The stubs will regrow allowing the frustration levels to increase.:hmm3grin2orange:

Then perhaps the owner will pay for the entire tree to be cut down.

What you have here is new Savvy businessman renovator owner vs old been there 40 years retired folk. I know, I get this all the time, and it goes on for years.

You have to realise that when you pay $1million dollars for something no 2 bob trees gonna spoil it.

 

[Ekka]

Hey, you think my prunings controversial then cop a load of this fence-line treatment.

 

[treeseer]

Hey, you think my prunings controversial then cop a load of this fence-line treatment.

So that vertical basal wound was where a root was cut? What will keep that tree from falling on its owner?

I've had to prune roots to make room for buildings. Not a fun job.

 

[Ekka]

Bumped into the Victorian rules today.

http://www.liv.asn.au/public/legalinfo/neighbour/neighbour-Trees.html

If branches from a neighbour’s tree overhang your property or its roots spread onto your land causing a nuisance or damage to your property, you are entitled to cut off the branches or sever the roots.

* Take care not to needlessly kill the tree or make it unstable. If the tree is needlessly damaged or becomes unstable and causes damage to other property, you may be liable to pay compensation.
* In the absence of an agreement with your neighbour or a court order, you will have to bear any cost of tree lopping yourself.
* The limbs or roots remain the property of your neighbour.
o They should be returned to your neighbour or disposed of by agreement.
* If a tree is causing physical damage to your property you can apply to the Magistrates Court for an order requiring your neighbour to remove the tree.
o You may be entitled to recover compensation for damages.

Resolving a dispute

1. Speak to your neighbour about the problem in a friendly and non-confrontational way.
2. If a solution cannot be reached, remove the limbs or roots yourself. Make sure you do not damage the tree.
3. If damage has occurred, consult a solicitor to pursue alternative dispute resolution methods.
4. If the neighbour still refuses to take action, you can commence proceedings in the Magistrates court.

Legal action should always be a last resort as it can have lasting detrimental effect on neighbour relations.