Diseased council owned TPO tree

[oakum]

Your opinions and advice please.

 

Large (15m) badly lopped Ash displaying Inonotus bracket at 5m and within striking distance of property should it fail. Tree situated on grass on council owned verge within group of other large H.Chestnuts.

 

Over time owner of property and myself have expressed concern at state of tree but have been repeatedly told by TO that they have to comply with W&C Act and are keeping it for this reason. In fairness they have said there are visual inspections due every 18 months but we are not happy or reassured by this.

 

Our latest letter of concern has resulted in a slight back pedal to the extent that they are now going to put in an application to themselves to take down their dead/dying and diseased tree. Their reason for this is to give other residents in the cul-de- sa a chance to object which we know several of them will although their properties are nowhere near the tree in question.

 

We feel this application will not go in our favour and would consider appealing but quite honestly think that the council could do the works without all this needless activity owing to the condition of the tree.

 

We accept that wildlife, if present, will be affected, but feel that, as a compromise, tree should be reduced to 5m to where the bracket is seen. This will allay our fears of tree failure damaging property while also allowing wildlife to (continue) colonising the resultant stump.

 

Yours views whether agreeing or disagreeing with ours would be most welcome.

Edited June 1, 2017 by oakum

[Steve Bullman]

Pics would help. If inonotis is present and it is that close to the tree then you have fair reason to be concerned imo

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[oakum]

Hello Steve

 

Another question is if the council refuse their own application will we be able appeal it. If I was into conspiracy theories I might think there is a master plan behind the application.

Edited June 1, 2017 by David Humphries

[daltontrees]

Hello Steve

 

Another question is if the council refuse their own application will we be able appeal it. If I was into conspiracy theories I might think there is a master plan behind the application.

 

There is no third party right of appeal.

 

I don't really see the problem here. If the tree causes harm or damage, the Council will be answerable. They will know that already.

 

Chances of an upright tree like that in a sheltered position falling over imminently if its only defect is Inonotus decay are probably small. But there's always more to a situation than one person's view and one photo.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

But there's always more to a situation than one person's view and one photo.

 

 

Agreed!

 

Conspiracy theories apart, it "could" be that if they approved their own application AND it was to fell, they'd be obliged to replant - maybe they haven't got the funds to cover (a) the felling (b) the replant / aftercare?

 

Maybe they'd approve a height reduction and retention and avoid the costs at (b)?

 

Or maybe it's as simple as the "risk" is just too low to justify doing anything other than maybe reduce inspection periodicity and the homeowner that is "concerned" is unnecessarily so?

 

Interesting though, LA TPO apps to themselves must be quite rare I'd have thought?

[oakum]

There is no third party right of appeal.

 

Julian thanks for that

 

I don't really see the problem here. If the tree causes harm or damage, the Council will be answerable. They will know that already.

 

That's the exact place we don't want to be at - within in the falling zone there is a large workshop at 5m, a large garage containing a classic vehicle and then there's the patio area and gazebo of the listed building.

 

Chances of an upright tree like that in a sheltered position falling over imminently if its only defect is Inonotus decay are probably small. But there's always more to a situation than one person's view and one photo.

 

The tree is far from being in a sheltered position it faces directly SW with the property to the NE and the weather funnels through between neighbouring properties. A large Beech came over last year landing on a nearby property and taking off a corner of the house. No compensation as "council was unaware prior to the incident of any disease affecting the tree" (solicitors quote). You'll maybe forgive me for being a tad synical of the council's inspection regime and understand our concerns.

 

Yes there are more than 1 viewpoint and this has been mine and without a chance of appeal or talking to another authority it is very difficult to know where to turn next.

 

Julian thank you for taking time to answer along with Steve Bullen who takes a different view as I read it regarding Inonotus.

 

To be continued I hope

[Gary Prentice]

I don't know, but would a visual inspection be classed as fulfilling their duty of care?

[Canal Navvy]

You could apply to erect a large steel frame to protect your clients

property. The listed building consent would get the planning department twitchy

[Anno]

LA TPO apps to themselves must be quite rare I'd have thought?

 

Not really.

 

I don't know, but would a visual inspection be classed as fulfilling their duty of care?

 

I would have thought so - what else would they do?

 

As an LA TO we have no access to technology and a massive amount of trees to manage.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Your opinions and advice please.

 

 

 

Our latest letter of concern has resulted in a slight back pedal to the extent that they are now going to put in an application to themselves to take down their dead/dying and diseased tree. Their reason for this is to give other residents in the cul-de- sa a chance to object which we know several of them will although their properties are nowhere near the tree in question.

 

We feel this application will not go in our favour and would consider appealing but quite honestly think that the council could do the works without all this needless activity owing to the condition of the tree.

 

We accept that wildlife, if present, will be affected, but feel that, as a compromise, tree should be reduced to 5m to where the bracket is seen. This will allay our fears of tree failure damaging property while also allowing wildlife to (continue) colonising the resultant stump.

 

Yours views whether agreeing or disagreeing with ours would be most welcome.

 

Not totally sure of the "ins n outs" here (as not familiar with the intricacies 2012 regs) in terms of council tree TPO'd, a rare occurrence, but I understand if its CA they simply have to place a notice and if no objections they can then proceed...or similar. However, clearly the tree is dead and thereby excepted from the regs (if applicable) so the council could act accordingly, i.e. cut the tree down if they so wish / felt the need.

 

Further, as a public body, they are ultimately answerable to their residents, collectively, and hence it would be reasonable for them to consult 'local' residents regardless.

 

In terms of 'likelihood' of failure resulting in damage, and taking into account the likely size of the part that fails, probably upper stem section rather than the whole stick, I would be of the opinion it is low level. Doubtless the Beech to which you refer had leaves...a sail area?

 

Just MY "thoughts out loud."

 

Cheers,

Paul