CCTV in TPO tree

[hippydan]

Anyone had this situation before? This is an email from a client -

 

"I wish to install a CCTV camera on the trunk of a large tree in my front garden. The tree is subject to a TPO. I would not want to damage it. Would you be able to advise"

 

I have no idea what to advise.

 

Thanks in advance, Dan. 

[daltontrees]

This was done almost to death recently on the UKTC forum. Almost. There are ways of attaching things to trees that do minimal damage and ways that do a whole lot of damage. The question is, is the damage wilful? If you could do it in a way that would cause minimal damage, do it that way. If you know how to do ity that way but you choose to do it badly or a worse way, theres a weak legal argument that says you could be prosecuted. If you do it badly, knowing it is going to damage a tree, you're a bad person and a prosecution might stick because it's (a) wilful and (b) damage.

 

Strap it on, and adjust it as the tree expands. If not, bolt it on with alloy or galvanised fixings that allow the fitting to move as the tree grows.

 

[roys]

What about the simplified ratchet strap type thing, the same sort that you get on trail cams

[hippydan]

Thanks. The galvanised bolts that move as the tree grows sound perfect. (Just unsure if they would be seen as wilful damage)

 

 

[daltontrees]

That's the point. Is it wilfiul? As I see it, if the intention is to mount a camera  rahter than to damage or destroy a tree, and you have taken reasonable precautions to minimise damage and to make the damage incidental to the purpose of the installation, I cna't see how it can damage the public amentiy that the tree provides. There shouldn't therefore be a case for prosecution.

[Daniël Bos]

A strap mount with a spring to allow for expansion seems the easiest option?

I don't think there is a need to do any damage at all just to mount a camera, so therefore any damage done could be seen as wilful?

[matelot]

tbh, I cant really see a ratchet strap doing any really damage to a tree... maybe reset it every year so that the tree doesn't become "strangled" and so that no moss builds up against the bark.

 

I can't see the council/ crown prosecution service being interested in something as trivial as this.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Life is a series of compromises....

On a scale of 1-10 (1 being low etc), how likely would it be, based on professional experience, that a LA would seek to (a) prosecute (b) even notice?

Unless it’s a high profile, national monument, tree of the year type candidate.....

I’m going with a massively over cautious 2!

[matelot]

2 hours ago, EdwardC said:

That is until it's put up and never adjusted. But of course the clients going to get back the tree surgeon every year to adjust it, aren't they. Also the strap would have to be quite tight to keep the camera secure so there's a good chance something will get damaged, and it won't be the camera.

 

Will the Council prosecute. That's for them to decide not posters on here. Even if you and your client were interviewed under caution you wouldn't be getting much repeat work or any recommendations. There's also the opportunity for the Council to issue a caution. I doubt the client would jump for joy.

 

Why put the camera in the tree at all.

 

Why advise your client that comiting a criminal offence is the way forward.

 

Why not be professional instead.

When I was a kid my dad made me a "death slide" between two TPO trees in his garden. You could probably argue that he was "wilfully damaging" the trees. However he was never charged..

 

I honestly think attaching a CCTV camera to a tree is like doing 31mph in a 30mph zone...

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

15 minutes ago, EdwardC said:

If you're advising or encouraging your client to break the law you may have experience, but you're not professional, neither is the advice.

They pay for the advice.....

 

The decisions are all theirs!