Who owns wot? We have a stream at the end of our back garden that takes the rain from the Downs down into the local water network. Fine. We were told that it was our responsibility to keep the stream clear - ie 'stuff' from our place shouldn't block the flow. Obvious and fine. But now there's a tree outside of the lines of our property on the deeds, but on the stream's bank on our side, that's grown to a stupid height - bigger than a big thing on steroids. Whopping. What concerns me is that I doubt that it's covered by our insurance - as it's not on our property - and I don't think it's ours to just cut down (or back to a reasonable size). Now I'm paranoid as there's a house behind ours that's potentially at risk should anything happen to the tree. Spent all morning trying to find out who is actually responsible. No joy. It's not the EA, as the stream isn't classed as a major stream until a 100 yards or so further on from us - so it's apparently the local county council. Spent an hour in a loop between their main switchboard and a secondary switchboard - after having to explain to the switchboard operator that I didn't want the Highways Agency.
@steveTu Contact your Parish Council. It probably isn't down to them but they ought to be able to help you find out who's job it is to deal with it. Turn up at the next parish meeting and raise it as an aob so its on the minutes. Then if anything does happen, at least there's a record of your concern being raised in a public forum
Gardening on the edge of Exmoor, in Devon
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
Presumably it's the responsibility of whoever owns the land that the tree's growing on. The Land Registry have a riverbank search service if you feel like spending £70 https://www.landregistryservices.com/online/land-ownership.asp?search=riverbanks . If you think your property is at risk, it might be best to get legal advice to find out whether you can have the tree reduced if the owner can't be identified. Your insurer might be able to give advice, and should cover any damage caused to your property if the tree falls and its owner can't be identified, but it won't cover damage to anyone else's property.
Doncaster, South Yorkshire. Soil type: sandy, well-drained
...thanks.. I'm not so much worried about my property, but the other house at the back. My property is far enough away to not be at risk, but the house behind is well within the 'shadow' of the tree.
From what I can gather, because it's a stream it then falls under flood management. Hence the EA contact first - but the EA would have owned the issue 200 yds away where our stream turns 'red' and into a major stream. Outside our place, it's a piddly stream or some such technical term - and is 'blue' so then falls under local flood management - and is covered (I think) by riparian ownership - but this web page and doc (https://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/environment/flooding/riparian-ownership/) distinguishes between where your deeds say the stream is. The stream is not on our property, but runs behind it. Just mailed ESCC to try to get to the Lead Flood Officer to see what they say. It's a healthy tree anyway, so I'm loathe to get someone in to cut it back/down, but if it is MY responsibility, I don't like the thought it could damage someone else's house.
...oh well, it's been like it for years and I hadn't taken any notice, so I suppose andother few days won't do any great harm. Cue major Michael Fish type hurricane.
I am probably not the only person who feels a Health Minister should be medical background trained
We have a civil service to advise and ministers to decide based on the advice. No medical person can possibly know the ins and outs of everything which would mean they need the same collection of experts as the non medical minister. It's just our system and it has worked through history with different levels of success but to change it isn't simple, you'd need to change the whole system.
BTW the same logic would mean to be an engineer for transport minister, armed services for defence minister, banker for chancellor and CEO of a large multi national for the PM. You'd need an ambassador for foreign secretary and a police officer for home secretary.
Or some similar occupation mix. Good luck finding them to be a minister. Basically what you're saying is we shouldn't have elected ministers and it should be a presidential system of appointees as ministers taken from experts in the field that the winning party like who effectively make politics decisions just like the non expert ministers we have. However we have access to the best advice on a case by case basis via a professional civil service outsourcing to experts in each and every field. We then have political decisions made based on that advice. Unfortunately you'll never take the politics out of it which I think you are really wanting.
"THE UK GOVERNMENT’S UNELECTED MINISTERS. Lord Frost – Brexit Baroness Evans – Cabinet Office & Lords Lord Agnew – Cabinet Office & Treasury Lord True – Cabinet Office Lord Callanan – Business Lord Grimstone – Business & Transport Baroness Barran – DCMS Baroness Berridge – Education & Trade Lord Gardiner – Environment"
I don't know how up to date this is, but you get the idea
All political appointees making political decisions when all said and done. Whilst most are elected there have always been appointed through the Lords. Doesn't make them any different in that they're making political decisions. Especially Brexit minister. Very close alignment with boris over Brexit. Lead player in the current agreements with the eu I reckon.
There is no way an appointee from a relevant profession can be apolitical which is where I suspect the idea of the medical expert as health Secretary comes from.
BTW chances are the ones needed are administrators not medical experts I reckon.
Posts
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
BTW the same logic would mean to be an engineer for transport minister, armed services for defence minister, banker for chancellor and CEO of a large multi national for the PM. You'd need an ambassador for foreign secretary and a police officer for home secretary.
Or some similar occupation mix. Good luck finding them to be a minister. Basically what you're saying is we shouldn't have elected ministers and it should be a presidential system of appointees as ministers taken from experts in the field that the winning party like who effectively make politics decisions just like the non expert ministers we have. However we have access to the best advice on a case by case basis via a professional civil service outsourcing to experts in each and every field. We then have political decisions made based on that advice. Unfortunately you'll never take the politics out of it which I think you are really wanting.
I don't know how up to date this is, but you get the idea
There is no way an appointee from a relevant profession can be apolitical which is where I suspect the idea of the medical expert as health Secretary comes from.
BTW chances are the ones needed are administrators not medical experts I reckon.
"pigs in a trough"
Take your pick
"all mates of Bojo" too