ISP (not BT) want to cut down our trees
Discussion
Narom said:
A tree preservation order may protect it from an ISP, but it will also protect it from you.
Is it a tree you cut back? If so you'd need permission going forward if you got one.
If it's entirely on your land, not even overhanging any boundaries I'd kindly let them know that if they enter your property or touch the tree you will be calling the police for trespassing or criminal damage.
If you had a large building there they wouldn't be requesting permission to demolish it, tell them to figure out something else.
That's my way of thinking also, they can jog on.Is it a tree you cut back? If so you'd need permission going forward if you got one.
If it's entirely on your land, not even overhanging any boundaries I'd kindly let them know that if they enter your property or touch the tree you will be calling the police for trespassing or criminal damage.
If you had a large building there they wouldn't be requesting permission to demolish it, tell them to figure out something else.
The tree wouldn't be cut back in the normal course of action (part of a hedgerow) and is entirely on our land.
If anything, we'd want to plant more trees, we've already planted over 2k this year.
Narom said:
Looks like that only applies to trees overhanging a road or street, it also only applies to interference with equipment installed on the land given the wording. WindyCommon said:
Would the proposed tree pruning adversely impact you in some way? If so, how?
Would effect the landscape of the hedgerow which as part of our stewardship scheme, we've spend a lot of time and money maintaining.As we as the fact that it's our land and none of their business. We didn't get consulted when they installed their equipment.
My inclination would be to tell the ISP to bugger off and find some other way of solving their problem that does not place any obligation on the OP.
As for seeking tree preservation orders, I wouldn't go that route either. What's in my garden is mine to do what I want with it, as and when I wish to do so.
Honestly we're getting far too much interference in what we can, and can not, do in our own homes.
As for seeking tree preservation orders, I wouldn't go that route either. What's in my garden is mine to do what I want with it, as and when I wish to do so.
Honestly we're getting far too much interference in what we can, and can not, do in our own homes.
Mammasaid said:
Would effect the landscape of the hedgerow which as part of our stewardship scheme, we've spend a lot of time and money maintaining.
As we as the fact that it's our land and none of their business. We didn't get consulted when they installed their equipment.
Would it adversely affect you though?As we as the fact that it's our land and none of their business. We didn't get consulted when they installed their equipment.
In typical PH style there are a lot of reactionary "tell them to jog on" and "ask them for money" responses. I suggest that you stop and think about whether the pruning really affects you adversely. If - in truth - it doesn't, why not let them go ahead under your supervision and with written agreement that no right/precedent is created? Your neighbour should understand that you have done them a favour by being reasonable.
You are right that it is your land/tree and not your equipment, but it is often better to avoid taking a position based on principle - particularly where neighbours are concerned. You never know when the shoe may be on the other foot.
WindyCommon said:
Mammasaid said:
Would effect the landscape of the hedgerow which as part of our stewardship scheme, we've spend a lot of time and money maintaining.
As we as the fact that it's our land and none of their business. We didn't get consulted when they installed their equipment.
Would it adversely affect you though?As we as the fact that it's our land and none of their business. We didn't get consulted when they installed their equipment.
In typical PH style there are a lot of reactionary "tell them to jog on" and "ask them for money" responses. I suggest that you stop and think about whether the pruning really affects you adversely. If - in truth - it doesn't, why not let them go ahead under your supervision and with written agreement that no right/precedent is created? Your neighbour should understand that you have done them a favour by being reasonable.
You are right that it is your land/tree and not your equipment, but it is often better to avoid taking a position based on principle - particularly where neighbours are concerned. You never know when the shoe may be on the other foot.
I believe that any favour granted would not be in our best interests only his.
Toltec said:
Narom said:
Looks like that only applies to trees overhanging a road or street, it also only applies to interference with equipment installed on the land given the wording. 
Applies to overhanging publicly. OP- you need to get a formal counter-notice as if they just called you they may deny you objected. Also:
page 125 said:
The court must, on an application made by a person who has sustained loss or damage in consequence of the lopping of the tree
or cutting back of the vegetation or who has incurred expenses in complying with the notice, order the operator to pay that person 25 such compensation in respect of the loss or damage as it thinks fit.
or cutting back of the vegetation or who has incurred expenses in complying with the notice, order the operator to pay that person 25 such compensation in respect of the loss or damage as it thinks fit.
hyphen said:
Toltec said:
Narom said:
Looks like that only applies to trees overhanging a road or street, it also only applies to interference with equipment installed on the land given the wording. Applies to overhanging publicly. OP- you need to get a formal counter-notice as if they just called you they may deny you objected. Also:
page 125 said:
The court must, on an application made by a person who has sustained loss or damage in consequence of the lopping of the tree
or cutting back of the vegetation or who has incurred expenses in complying with the notice, order the operator to pay that person 25 such compensation in respect of the loss or damage as it thinks fit.
or cutting back of the vegetation or who has incurred expenses in complying with the notice, order the operator to pay that person 25 such compensation in respect of the loss or damage as it thinks fit.
Legislation said:
In sub-paragraph (1) “relevant electronic communications apparatus” means electronic communications apparatus which —
(a)is installed, or about to be installed, on land, and
(b)is used, or to be used, for the purposes of an operator’s network.
could be interpreted to say, 'it's not on our land, therefore you have no right to fell our trees'.(a)is installed, or about to be installed, on land, and
(b)is used, or to be used, for the purposes of an operator’s network.
I've read through all the posts and please correct me if I missed it but I'm surprised to see that nobody has mentioned the fact that;
pruning the trees might (if not probably) won't fix the problem and will probably result in other work to rectify the situation.
On this basis alone I would decline, also the cost of pruning (if the trees are as large as they sound) could run into several £k for the isp be much better their while to find another solution.
Avoid a TPO.
pruning the trees might (if not probably) won't fix the problem and will probably result in other work to rectify the situation.
On this basis alone I would decline, also the cost of pruning (if the trees are as large as they sound) could run into several £k for the isp be much better their while to find another solution.
Avoid a TPO.
strath44 said:
I've read through all the posts and please correct me if I missed it but I'm surprised to see that nobody has mentioned the fact that;
pruning the trees might (if not probably) won't fix the problem and will probably result in other work to rectify the situation.
I read the OP's post as a niche rural ISP using line of sight means to distribute wifi. So if the trees are in the way, it may help you would think? The alternative is for the ISP to put up a mast higher than the tree on the neighbours property, which is probably more cost.pruning the trees might (if not probably) won't fix the problem and will probably result in other work to rectify the situation.
Their network design should have taken into account the trees and if necessary raised the masts/antenna so line of sight (and fresnel zone) is achievable. This is basic wireless networking practice. If they needed to go through an area they should have consulted the tree/land owner first, not implemented the network then complain about the trees afterwards.
At least that would be the common sense approach
At least that would be the common sense approach
Digital Economy Act Pt 13 s82(1) says the right to lop only applies if overhanging a road or street(not sure of the difference, but assuming the hedge & tree are in the middle of a field that doesnt apply
Also says a notice has to be served-so needs more than a call IMHO
Sched 1 (5) also seems to apply only to lines & equipment, not wifi waves
Also says a notice has to be served-so needs more than a call IMHO
Sched 1 (5) also seems to apply only to lines & equipment, not wifi waves
Edited by kowalski655 on Thursday 3rd August 20:25
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff