Beech Failure - building damage / road closure / power out

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

The boys did a good job clearing it up and getting the road open on Sunday - luckily making best use of Western Power Mog MEWP.  The log goblins were ravenous!  Not a single stick left to carried away by the contractor and the Vicar left wondering were all the timber had gone.  She's glad it's gone and expecting some contributions to the Church plate - I think she's going to be sadly disappointed how "grabby" people can be.

 

 

 

 

[Khriss]

Well done - nice n tidy fr the structural engineers to come and have a look K

[skyhuck]

Err... I think they missed a bit.

[Dan Maynard]

That is brilliant - saved me having to ever watch an episode of Poldark as I already know the plot. Proper funny.

[treeseer]

How was the standing remainder of the tree managed?

 

Shame that no one went up there to reduce those laterals and tie the trunks together somehow; old climbing rope, or 

 

 

 

really nice video; a shout out to Al Kraus of Independent Tree of Ohio, US.  Al gave his time and resources to our regeneration pruning research at Biomechanics Week 2016 and was much fun to work with!. 

[treeseer]

How many reams of paper and how many meetings would it take to care for that TPO beech tree?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

10 hours ago, skyhuck said:

Err... I think they missed a bit.

Weekend work = on call contractor, turned up, did the job, used the available assets on site, got the road open.  Job done.  (private sector)

 

The remainder, I suspect, will now fall (ha) to the LA to resolve.  LABC unsafe structures bod was on site Sat night & Sun.  There have been a steady stream of 'Cormac' vans "having a good look at it" ever since (Cormac is LAs arms length contractor (100% share owned and staffed by ex-LA staff) - so LA pay it's own contractor to do it's own work and charge the job + profit margin back to LA which comes out of tax payers pocket!)

 

Probably be weeks / months, and many more visits by Cormac to "have a good look at it" before anything further actually HAPPENS.  (public sector) 

 

9 hours ago, Dan Maynard said:

That is brilliant - saved me having to ever watch an episode of Poldark as I already know the plot. Proper funny.

There are others!  Brilliant!!

4 hours ago, treeseer said:

How many reams of paper and how many meetings would it take to care for that TPO beech tree?

That's an easy one to answer! Its LA!!

 

There are many years (9 or 10) of email history from local residents and Trustees of the community hall expressing concern (notably the majority of it poorly informed and without basis in observation, record, likelihood of failure knowledge.) 

 

One local resident even tried to con me into reducing it many years ago by telling me the Vicar had OK’d it and said any work was fine (did he really think I wouldn’t talk to the Vicar, the PCC, check for TPO and understand the additional complexities of trees in churchyards?)

 

The vicar, now departed, actually swore when I told him about this chap's attempts to get the tree reduced / removed by illicit means (I mention that because he was such a lovely man and a true gent so it was quite a shock to hear him swear - unlike the vicar from my childhood village who propelled himself around at great speed in one of the light blue plastic 3 wheelers due to his wooden leg (speed seemed excessive but given the scale of things was all much bigger when I were a yoof it's obvious now that it will have been no more than 10 mph), he had to drive due to being too pi55ed to walk, was banned from all 3 pubs for lewd and riotous behaviour, and was having an illicit affair with the previous vicar's daughter - any way, I digress!

 

Fact remains, there are fairly obvious indicators of potential vulnerabilities in the main stem.  There is a long documented history of resident concern.  The tree was in the direct care of the LA.  There are notable high value / risk targets in the failure area.  Inspections were insufficient to identify and ameliorate the potential for harm / damage.  Failure has occurred and damage has resulted (luckily, yes just luck, no injury / death was sustained.)

 

So for all the talk of probability of failure and risk of harm (which really only interests arb types anyway) the perpetual complainers can now say "told you so" and the ability to try and educate people to the actual risk of harm is totally lost along with the credibility of anyone that tries to make a reasoned argument for retention and management of trees.  

 

There is another documented example of inadequate care and attention by the LA for the trees in this cemetery which, although probably not directly associated with this failure, will provide evidence of poor general stewardship.  I'll keep that one under wraps for the time being.

 

Upshot of it all - people will now be even more risk averse to trees in their vicinity probably leading to a further reduction in amenity, LA will take the costs for not doing what they should have done from council tax payers, putting everything back to rights will be contracted to the company that is owned by the LA.  A so the cycle will continue with nobody taken to account.

 

 

 

[treeseer]

" Inspections were insufficient to identify and ameliorate the potential for harm / damage.  "

 

What does this mean?  In all the years of complaints and inspections, no one specified a bracing job aka a cable?

Why not?

And the owners/managers of the building could not just exercise self-help by having the overhang reduced?

Why not?

Sorry to be so clueless but this all around seems daft to me.

Edited July 3, 2018 by treeseer

[Mick Dempsey]

9 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

 

 

So for all the talk of probability of failure and risk of harm (which really only interests arb types anyway) the perpetual complainers can now say "told you so" 

 

And they’d be absolutely right! 

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

1 hour ago, Mick Dempsey said:

 

And they’d be absolutely right! 

 

Well yes, but the same is true of every tree, if you live long enough, at some point you will be proved right! The main campaigned against this tree died a couple of years back so never got to say - told you so ?