an interesting one...

[openspaceman]

Good survey report I thought.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Arbtalk mobile app

 

Yes but is there no recourse when it looks like someone has caused the problem by having bonfires next to the tree, apparently on a regular basis?

[fen01]

I think fires (or the issue of deliberately damaging the tree) is a different issue. The decision should be made on the evidence presented at the planning meeting, it appears this time the TO, unfortunate got it wrong. Of course we never really know how often trees that may last for years are felled on safety grounds...

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Arbtalk mobile app

[oslac]

Seems amenity has taken priority over safety. Third opinion should have been sought. Good survey report I thought.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Arbtalk mobile app

 

Why should a third opinion be sought. The surveyor appears to be qualified, his report seems to be comprehensive as does his conclusion. The Tree Officer has decided to overrule the opinion of an expert.

 

The question I would consider, is not whether the tree has amenity value but is the surveyor's opinion relating to the tree's structural integrity defendable and if it is not, the TO should set out why the expert's opinion is wrong.

 

Requiring additional information (picus/resistograph) may be the answer but perhaps the TO should understand that bonfires can cause extensive and irretrievable damage to a tree and noting the lean and location of the tree, should consider the probability of failure rather than be swayed by the amenity value.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

The homeowner appears to have been "content" to accept the refusal notice rather than progress the matter.

 

The survey report failed to provide sufficient evidence to PROVE the probability of failure (or provide sufficient weight of evidence in support of the probability.)

 

The TO appears to have relied upon the old "amenity" chestnut to recommend refusal.

 

If the homeowner or surveyor had had sufficient conviction they could have progressed to more advanced investigations (leaning Beech - Merip? GPR root finder?)

 

Will be interesting to see where liabilities are laid!

 

The lesson I'd take from it is, if you really believe the cause is just, never, ever give in (unless you have a signed indemnity excusing you from progressing any further - wether that be from the tree owner or the authority who is taking on liability as a consequence of refusal.)

[oslac]

The homeowner appears to have been "content" to accept the refusal notice rather than progress the matter.

 

The survey report failed to provide sufficient evidence to PROVE the probability of failure (or provide sufficient weight of evidence in support of the probability.)

 

The TO appears to have relied upon the old "amenity" chestnut to recommend refusal.

 

If the homeowner or surveyor had had sufficient conviction they could have progressed to more advanced investigations (leaning Beech - Merip? GPR root finder?)

 

Will be interesting to see where liabilities are laid!

 

The lesson I'd take from it is, if you really believe the cause is just, never, ever give in (unless you have a signed indemnity excusing you from progressing any further - wether that be from the tree owner or the authority who is taking on liability as a consequence of refusal.)

 

Sounds good but the reality is that homeowners can't or won't keep paying out for advice. They employ a consultant at great expense and then the consultant says, this is my opinion but you will now need another expert with a picus to agree with me and by the way and additional £500 will be required, or maybe an appeal with no guarantee that my (consultant's) opinion will be agreed with.

 

I think its very difficult for homeowners when two so-called experts are locked into a battle with spiraling costs. Proof is a difficult concept especially when it comes to trees. These are weasley words used by TO to show that they are considering the issue but don't agree. The TO should set out why (in their opinion) the consultant has got it wrong. Using words and phrases like:

Not enough evidence, or the consultant is unable to prove or demonstrate are meaningless and leaves the consultant and the Client in limbo land.

[Arctostaphylos uva-ursi]

oslac, I am intrigued to know how you go about testing for root decay with a Picus?

[oslac]

oslac, I am intrigued to know how you go about testing for root decay with a Picus?

 

I think I said in my first post picus/resistograph.

[Arctostaphylos uva-ursi]

But in your last you repeated Picus. So how would you go about it with either? I am genuinely interested in learning something here.

[oslac]

But in your last you repeated Picus. So how would you go about it with either? I am genuinely interested in learning something here.

 

Perhaps I should have mentioned resistograph in my second post but as it was mentioned in my first, I though I had got the point across. My bad

 

I was not advocating the use of either, I think too much money can be thrown at the so called 'proving' a potential hazard tree. Yes it is possible to go to extreme lengths to prove but where does it stop.

 

Carry out a tree inspection by an expert (Consultant), then

Carry out a picus on a limb or trunk then;

Resistograph on the buttress roots and possibly surface roots then;

Ground penetrating radar for the remaining roots and then just to make sure, air spade to expose the roots for complete investigation and we come back to the need for the picus and resistograph.

 

All invasive and non-invasive techniques have their limitations and I guess the most cost-effective and resilient method to reach 51% probability is recommended. What that method is should be down to the Consultant. Otherwise the Consultant is redundant and all tree inspections will need go through a process of assessment based on tools and computers and carried out by a technician.

Not sure the cost justifies the outcome though.

[Arctostaphylos uva-ursi]

Ah ok. Got you. I genuinely thought I had missed a trick there.

I am surprised that the council did not instigate some further investigations/monitoring. I assume that they did not believe the homeowners assertion that the tree had started to lean more heavily.

I would be interested to read about the fallout.