Maybe, but if so his trees are not included.

As I have written before I have a preservation order on three very large
lime trees. This means that while I cannot carry out any work on them, or
under their canopy, without permission from the local council, I am still
responsible for them and any damage they may cause, rather one sided I
think.

Now I also have a number of trees at the bottom rear of my garden, mainly
alder, most of which I intended slowly removing and replacing with a
variety, but also two oaks and silver birch.
Yesterday came a knock on the door. A very pleasant young Scot showed me
his authority from a firm of tree surgeons working for the electricity
suppliers.
It seem that under health and safety these fairly mature trees are too close
to electricity lines running along the bottom of my garden. Now I have the
choose, I can sign to say that I refuse to let them touch them, in which
case they will obtain a court order, or I can give them permission to fell
them, which I did.
In fact I am pleased to see the alders going, as I would have removed them
over the next few years as their replacements grew, also it will open up our
view considerably. Though I am a little sad to see the oaks and silver
birch go. I am also sad to think that in years to come the trees I have
planted will be felled for the same reason. Though who knows maybe by then
electricity above ground cables will be a thing of the past.
Just thought that I would share this with you all.
So, all you macho men out there, remember, you neither own your trees or
your wife! :-)
Cheers
John T

So, all you macho men out there, remember, you neither own your trees or
your wife! :-)
Cheers
John T


This part I especially like.........more males should think this way and
we would have a more enjoyable life........Harold walker.

So, all you macho men out there, remember, you neither own your trees or
your wife! :-)

Nor even the land your house is built on ...

Mary

Cheers
John T

"John Towill" wrote:

So, all you macho men out there, remember, you neither own your trees or
your wife! :-)

May a Murken has a wee gloat here?

Although my town board would take a dim view of building a factory or a
toxic waste dump here, I can cut or plant trees as I wish, and livestock
would only be of interest if it wandered down the road too often.

There are "historic" places that are more closely regulated, but I'm in a
"as long as you don't frighten the livestock" sort of area...

Right now, it's windy, cold, scattered blowing rain.... my Scots ancestors
would feel right at home!


Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at www.albany.net/~gwoods
Zone 5/6 in upstate New York, 1200' elevation. NY WO G

"Middleton/Walker" wrote in message
...

So, all you macho men out there, remember, you neither own your trees or
your wife! :-)
If only someone would turn up with a court order and take a chainsaw to the
wife...... ])

"John Towill" wrote:

Hello John

JT As I have written before I have a preservation order on
JT three very large lime trees. This means that while I cannot
JT carry out any work on them, or under their canopy, without
JT permission from the local council, I am still responsible
JT for them and any damage they may cause, rather one sided
JT I think.

It's a shame so many owners of TPO'd trees feel this way. Have a good
read of the TPO itself (council TO will assist) - it'll show why these
exist and that it's not really so onerous to do the essential
maintenance to keep them safe.

JT Now I also have a number of trees at the bottom rear of my
JT garden, mainly alder, most of which I intended slowly
JT removing and replacing with a variety, but also two oaks and
JT silver birch. Yesterday came a knock on the door. A very
JT pleasant young Scot showed me his authority from a firm of
JT tree surgeons working for the electricity suppliers. It seem
JT that under health and safety these fairly mature trees are
JT too close to electricity lines running along the bottom of
JT my garden. Now I have the choose, I can sign to say that I
JT refuse to let them touch them, in which case they will
JT obtain a court order, or I can give them permission to fell
JT them, which I did. In fact I am pleased to see the alders
JT going, as I would have removed them over the next few years
JT as their replacements grew, also it will open up our view

I used to do exactly this job for SWEB, and felling is rarely the
first option we gave. In nearly every case (except where landowner
requested, or when clearing for pylons which require a far greater
safety margin than LV or normal HV overheads) we merely removed
offending branches.

Maybe the policy's different where you are, but as the landowner you
still have a lot of say. The eleco will work very hard to avoid
getting a court order, and even then you may still have a chance to
prevent the work - I do know of at least two cases where the overheads
were removed following a stroppy owner not budging about tree work.
(Although in one of those cases, the supply fed only his property and
he was left without mains connection at all, but I guess he wanted to
use a generator if it meant getting his own way)

But this very much depends on the situation and the depth of your
pocket as wayleave challenges tend to drag on for a while.

JT considerably. Though I am a little sad to see the oaks and
JT silver birch go. I am also sad to think that in years to
JT come the trees I have planted will be felled for the same
JT reason. Though who knows maybe by then electricity above
JT ground cables will be a thing of the past. Just thought that

Ah, but undergrounds need to be kept clear too! (Normally by plonking
a road ontop)

I do sympathise, but planting under or nearby high voltage cables is
bound to cause complications. When you bought the property, your
lawyer should have made you aware of the wayleaves in effect?

--
Simon Avery, Dartmoor, UK Ý http://www.digdilem.org/