Beech Failure - building damage / road closure / power out

[Mick Dempsey]

11 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

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 ?

Not really true of every tree, in the sense that some trees will die in an orderly manner, giving one plenty of time to pull the trigger.

 

A beech like that, three times bigger than the building with an included division.

 

No reduction, no cabling or anything else should be considered, should have been removed years ago.

Edited July 3, 2018 by Mick Dempsey

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

4 hours ago, treeseer said:

" 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.

I'm guessing, the inspections either didn't recognise or didn't apply sufficient significance to the signs of potential compression fork fracture (Research for Amenity Trees N0.4 The Body Language of Trees page 60)

 

It appears, from local knowledge from several different sources, that steel bracing rod had previously been installed but isn't there now and hasn't been for the past 10 years I've known the tree.  If true, it would indicate that the potential weakness was, previously identified and action taken, and that, possibly, the lack of continuation / replacement of the previous brace (which the limb may have come to partially rely upon) could have hastened the current failure? Just guessing.

 

Not clueless at all, good questions!  The tree stands in a closed cemetery.  It 'belongs' to the church but is managed by the LA.  It is TPO'd (obviously works are authorised by LA.). LA inspect, LA authorise appropriate works.  So neighbour (without roof) could have taken action to abate a nuisance, but there wasn't an actionable nuisance.  Check-mate!   

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

8 minutes ago, Mick Dempsey said:

Not really true of every tree, in the sense that some trees will die in an orderly manner, giving one plenty of time to pull the trigger.

 

A beech like that, three times bigger than the building with an included division.

 

No reduction, no cabling or anything else, should have been removed years ago.

Reduce / remove - whole separate subject!

 

It was said today by 1 resident that a "representative of the LA" had said it hadn't been removed previously because of financial restrictions.... Not what you want to hear when your roof has just been stoved in and perhaps a little tactless by said representative.  We all know how people latch on to certain comments that may have been thought out loud or muttered in haste...  That one is going to be impossible to recover from!

[Mick Dempsey]

1 minute ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Reduce / remove - whole separate subject!

 

It was said today by 1 resident that a "representative of the LA" had said it hadn't been removed previously because of financial restrictions.... Not what you want to hear when your roof has just been stoved in and perhaps a little tactless by said representative.  We all know how people latch on to certain comments that may have been thought out loud or muttered in haste...  That one is going to be impossible to recover from!

I actually edited my post to make my meaning less ambiguous. Sorry.

[treeseer]

So the building owner would have to document an actionable nuisance; got it.  That could/should have been fairly easy to do, if they had hired an arborist with 20/20 vision.

 

re a rod being removed, I don't believe it.  Once installed, they are near impossible to get out.  Plus the scar from that operation should have been quite visible in the fallen piece.

 

TPOs are quite rare in the US.

[Khriss]

Mr Kev - you live a full an fascinating life :) K

[Khriss]

1 hour ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Reduce / remove - whole separate subject!

 

It was said today by 1 resident that a "representative of the LA" had said it hadn't been removed previously because of financial restrictions.... Not what you want to hear when your roof has just been stoved in and perhaps a little tactless by said representative.  We all know how people latch on to certain comments that may have been thought out loud or muttered in haste...  That one is going to be impossible to recover from!

..especially as you posted it on a tree website :P K

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

43 minutes ago, treeseer said:

So the building owner would have to document an actionable nuisance; got it.  That could/should have been fairly easy to do, if they had hired an arborist with 20/20 vision.

 

re a rod being removed, I don't believe it.  Once installed, they are near impossible to get out.  Plus the scar from that operation should have been quite visible in the fallen piece.

 

TPOs are quite rare in the US.

There wasn’t an actionable nuisance. It was big, it was over the building but not touching or interfering with it (prior to the limb failure). As such, since it was TPO’d, the neighbours hands were tied, nothing they could do, apart from write in to LA and say “we’re worried about it.”

 

There are some cracking previous threads about actionable / non actionable nuisance with TPO trees on this site - you’d need to set a nice fit aside to read them ?

 

3 people have told me today it was braced previously. On the one hand, it would seem logical and they were all, independently, adamant. But on the other, I haven’t seen any tell tales - might be easier when the stems are on the ground. 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

5 minutes ago, Khriss said:

Mr Kev - you live a full an fascinating life K

If only I could stop doing stuff that doesn’t pay and focus on the stuff that does....  ?

[Khriss]

Oh - not just me then :) K