Dead-wooding protected trees - Are we all doing it wrong?

[Gary Prentice]

I've been doing a little research, triggered by the legalities of managing protected trees suffering from ash dieback. It seems that I may have been operating under a mis-understanding for several years that removing deadwood was exempt from applications and notifications under the 'dead' exception in the legislation. 

As a courtesy and to prevent neighbours calling the LA I often phone to let them know we'll be on site dead-wooding, but reading a publication produced by Cornwall Council it seems that I should have been producing written 5-day notices.

 

Exceptions include:
• pruning part of a tree that presents an urgent and serious safety
risk (see note 2 below)

• removing dead branches from a living tree

 

Important note 2: The law makes it clear that in terms of exceptions,
dangerous means ‘immediate risk of serious harm’.
Therefore a risk assessment would address the size of branch or tree (being
assessed) and the likelihood of it falling on a vulnerable or valuable target.

 

So my take on this is that unless the dead limbs that are being removed provide an imminent risk of harm or serious damage, a five day notice should be provided. It reads that we should be considering the diameter/length of deadwood and the affect of it falling as to whether we can just crack on or need to be a bit more formal in our approach. 

 

Thoughts and comments please.

5-day-notice-advice-note.pdf

[Khriss]

Ooooo Gary- Hold yr hand out you naughty boy ! Actually , deadwood is very mis understood . I now spec' jobs as ' retain Deadwood IF there is no target of value ' ( people , footpaths , highways ) on the ecology side of things K

 

 

 

 

 

[fagus]

Agree with Khriss, dead wood is valuable and part of the food cycle.

[Khriss]

Back when , my trainer said at York college  ' remove all deadwood on climb' in the 90's. Now things are different . I blame that little Swediish girl K 

Edited September 11, 2019 by Khriss
Actually I blame that little Swedish girl for everything now- including not being able to find my glasses...

[Gary Prentice]

4 hours ago, Khriss said:

Ooooo Gary- Hold yr hand out you naughty boy ! Actually , deadwood is very mis understood . I now spec' jobs as ' retain Deadwood IF there is no target of value ' ( people , footpaths , highways ) on the ecology side of things K

 

 

 

 

 

Congrats.... Thread derailed in the first response 

 

This is the legal forum, so the pro's and cons of deadwood are totally irrelevant Khriss , try to keep on track (see what I did there?)

 

Cornwall councils interpretation of the requirement to submit a five day notice, where the risk of harm/damage is low, is a new one on me and has never been raised in any of the training that I've attended. 

To be fair, it even seems logical and on a par with the rules relating to dead trees i.e. notify unless there is an imminent risk of harm/damage.

[Khriss]

I shall consider myself admonished. In clear light It seems practical. Maybe filling gap where it was used as an excuse to ' just take a bit more off whilst am up there' k

[Paul Cleaver]

7 hours ago, Gary Prentice said:

 

As a courtesy and to prevent neighbours calling the LA I often phone to let them know we'll be on site dead-wooding,

 

 

5-day-notice-advice-note.pdf 2.64 MB · 4 downloads

All contractors should do this. Mrs Miggins might blow things out of proportion and say someone is cutting the tree down, and the TO makes an unnecessary  mad dash to the site.

[Gary Prentice]

1 hour ago, EdwardC said:

You do not need to give any notice to remove dead wood from a living tree protected either by a TPO or its location in a conservation area, as it is allowed by virtue of Reg. 14(1)(b)  The Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation)(England) Regulations 2012. It doesn't have to be dangerous, it just has to be dead.

 

Reg 14(1)(a)(i) provides for the removal of dead trees, Reg 14(1)(c) provides for undertaking works that are urgently required for safety reasons. The duty to give notice to the LPA arises from Reg 14(2) which states 'Where paragraphs (1)(a)(i) or (1)(c) apply, notice in writing of the proposed activities shall be given to the authority...'  

 

As noted above, it's Reg 14(1)(b) that provides the exception to remove deadwood from a living tree, a Reg. that isn't mentioned in respect of having to give notice.

 

I would suggest that if you are removing deadwood from a living tree, whether or not it could be considered to represent a real danger is irrelevant as, it can be removed without notice by virtue of Reg. 14(1)(b).

So Cornwall Councils legal team are wrong? I wonder if they've ever tried to prosecute for failing to notify a dead-wooding operation? 

6 minutes ago, Paul Cleaver said:

All contractors should do this. Mrs Miggins might blow things out of proportion and say someone is cutting the tree down, and the TO makes an unnecessary  mad dash to the site.

Not so bothered about the TO's rushing out , just the aggravation of stopping work to explain what you're doing. 

 

[Gary Prentice]

43 minutes ago, EdwardC said:

As I read it, there's no suggestion that you must notify the council to remove deadwood.

I follow your reasoning entirely but the short paragraph below the two Important notes, 1 & 2 has led me astray.

 

"Therefore a risk assessment would address the size of branch or tree (being assessed) and the likelihood of it falling on a vulnerable or valuable target."

 

My bad, I wasn't understanding that the above paragraph was referring to compliance with the 'dangerous' exception and had nothing to do with dead branches, covered simply by their own exception. 

 

Thanks for persevering to correct my misunderstanding. 

 

[Puffingbilly413]

50 minutes ago, EdwardC said:

If it's not clear, or easy to understand, from the document what the Council are trying to communicate, it's a failure of the Council.

 

Elsewhere on here I have extolled the values of grammer, punctuation and spelling to make it clear exactly what it is that you are trying to communicate.

Can't fault your grammar, perhaps your spelling though.  Sorry...couldn't resist.

 

Anyway, an interesting thread and comments, so thanks.