Jump to content

Log in or register to remove this advert

Oak tree - virus/bacteria/infection?


Hadyn98
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 29/10/2019 at 22:23, EdwardC said:

By and large we agree. However, I would provide a professional opinion rather than guess.

 

I couldn't agree more regards early formative pruning. Other than to say it shouldn't be the land owners job but the nurseries. More than that, the tree specifiers who demand  'well branched crowns' rather than naturally branched crowns. I once sat next to Ed Gillman for dinner. Very enlightening. Most people might end up sharing photos of family or pets. We ended up sharing photos of bad tree pruning, much better.

 

I would avoid telling clients, or anyone else, you have made trees safer, or claiming you have eliminated risk. Making safer doesnt mean reducing risk to a tolerable level. And you cannot eliminate risk. Manage it yes, elliminate it, impossible.

 

Regards removal of a tree because of an included union. Well it does seem that is something many would do. Maybe I'm just less risk averse, or more content that my advice balances risk, benefit, cost, is reasonable and proportionate, and most importantly, defensible. And a large part of that defence would be using the correct words in my reports e.g. area/zone of high use/high value 'targets'. Not areas of high risk.

 

I'm quite happy to tell a client I have eliminated risk from this type of defect if they follow my recommendation, eg bracing spec and re-inspection program, or reduction of the included limb to a stub (not in a co-dominant case) if retention of the tree justifies some ugly pruning, both mean a failure of the type we are discussing isn't going to happen.

I suspect we will have to wait and see the outcome of a case where you have left an included union with a target. I suspect whether the zone is high use or not won't count for as much as you hope with this sort of failure. There is always the moral argument to consider, these are very obvious defects that can be seen, and as we can do something about it before damage is caused so shouldn't we? Reserve the act of god defence for those truly unpredictable failures that cause damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Log in or register to remove this advert

On 29/10/2019 at 21:23, Gary Prentice said:

Playing devils advocate :D 

 

To make something safer isn't there a presumption that there would be a failure without an action being taken? How are you predicting one included union will fail before the next inspection and another one will not? (Having spent several days viewing beech trees with typical, for beech, included bark unions.

Maybe, or you could be under instruction from a risk adverse client perhaps following a tree failure incident/ near miss.

How about union condition, proportion, lean,  bracing (natural or synthetic), brown edge or not, mutual canopy support, topex 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/10/2019 at 22:23, EdwardC said:

I once sat next to Ed Gillman for dinner. Very enlightening.

 

I met him at a conference one year. Enlightening and definitely outspoken in his criticism of the lack of pruning by the nursery trade :lol: I particularly liked his attitude of pruning at planting time, to create a good scaffold structure - even if it meant removing 50+% of the foliage. The faces of some of the delegates was just priceless once he demonstrated with his secateurs. 

15 hours ago, Andrew McEwan said:

Maybe, or you could be under instruction from a risk adverse client perhaps following a tree failure incident/ near miss.

How about union condition, proportion, lean,  bracing (natural or synthetic), brown edge or not, mutual canopy support, topex 

Sorry Andrew, I think that you're missing my point. Wander through a beech would and you'll see included bark union after union and evidence of historic failures. We know that they have a potential to fail, each different (for all the reasons you've stated above) and that that potential will change with changes in their surroundings etc. But if you could positively identify which will fail, under given circumstances - humidity, wind-speed/direction, and which won't - then, and only then would you know whether bracing/pruning/subordination etc had actually made them safer. 

 

I acknowledge that any tree can be made 'safer' by bracing and/or pruning - but unless you can guarantee that it will fail without action, have you actually made it safer or just spent the owners money? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

 

I met him at a conference one year. Enlightening and definitely outspoken in his criticism of the lack of pruning by the nursery trade :lol: I particularly liked his attitude of pruning at planting time, to create a good scaffold structure - even if it meant removing 50+% of the foliage. The faces of some of the delegates was just priceless once he demonstrated with his secateurs. 

Sorry Andrew, I think that you're missing my point. Wander through a beech would and you'll see included bark union after union and evidence of historic failures. We know that they have a potential to fail, each different (for all the reasons you've stated above) and that that potential will change with changes in their surroundings etc. But if you could positively identify which will fail, under given circumstances - humidity, wind-speed/direction, and which won't - then, and only then would you know whether bracing/pruning/subordination etc had actually made them safer. 

 

I acknowledge that any tree can be made 'safer' by bracing and/or pruning - but unless you can guarantee that it will fail without action, have you actually made it safer or just spent the owners money? 

I think that just comes to a difference in business approach Gary, never mind included unions I think a lot of arb recommendations are made without clients expecting or being offered an absolute guarantee on safety. If you want to brace an included union over a busy car park, but not a similar one inside a woodland I'd say that was still a reasonable approach, without trying to offer 100% certainty that the car park union will fail. In that case I'd say yes that union over the car park has been made safer, I don't need to 100% guarantee its failure potential to have made a reasonable recommendation.

Re. budgets I don't let that affect my recommendations, sometimes I will give various options, which will have different costs, but that buck should stop with the landowner not the surveyor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Andrew McEwan said:

I think that just comes to a difference in business approach Gary, never mind included unions I think a lot of arb recommendations are made without clients expecting or being offered an absolute guarantee on safety. If you want to brace an included union over a busy car park, but not a similar one inside a woodland I'd say that was still a reasonable approach, without trying to offer 100% certainty that the car park union will fail. In that case I'd say yes that union over the car park has been made safer, I don't need to 100% guarantee its failure potential to have made a reasonable recommendation.

Re. budgets I don't let that affect my recommendations, sometimes I will give various options, which will have different costs, but that buck should stop with the landowner not the surveyor. 

I don't disagree,at all, with anything that you are saying here. All we can do is point out that there is a potential of failure at an included union, we can't reasonably predict in most circumstances if it will or won't. It's the clients level of risk aversion which ultimately decides whether action is taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, EdwardC said:

You can't eliminate risk or make something safe. You can manage risk, you can reduce risk, but there always remains a residual risk that could be realised. How will you explain that to your client and the court, should the residual risk be realised. I'm not saying that what you have done to reduce the risk to a tolerable level isn't sensible, just that you haven't eliminated the risk, or explained it in a way that is in your best interest, or that of your client.

 

You don't have to wait. Bowen v National Trust, Micklewright v Surrey County Council, and the Corenors report into the death of Erena Wilson, or the case of Timothy Sutton, and many more, should point you in the right direction. If not all about included unions.

 

The moral argument is the weakest of all arguments if, by moral argument, you mean tugging at the heart strings.

 

Nothing in common law nor statute requires an owner or occupier to make his/her land completely safe. Because they can't. Don't pretend they can.

As I said earlier I'm not trying to persuade you Edward, just lodging an alternative view on here. I haven't said or pretended that I can make a land holding safe, we are discussing included unions, which if you reduce them to a stub or brace them correctly can be made safe, whether the same tree then falls over with some nice new bracing in it due to a compromised root system is another issue. Have a read back through and focus on the unions, there is no residual risk if the union is gone or braced correctly, I'm happy that my clients understand this approach, we're not discussing whole tree safety and risk, just your approach of leaving included unions if you don't see signs of imminent  failure.

 

No one is tugging at heart strings, I'm pointing out that some of us recommend action on included unions, and some seem less keen, I'm happy with my approach, you're happy with yours, other readers can see both views, forum job done.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without boring everyone to tears Edward, again our views differ, Bowen vs NT was about a tree in low frequency of use zone, and the Micklewright tree hadn't been inspected, and the limb union was obscured by ivy. Erena Wilsons death wasn't due to an included union as far as I know, disputed summer branch drop I think, and Sutton NT death was due to a whole tree failure, again not an included union that a surveyor had recorded and not actioned. I don't think there has been a case where a surveyor has seen and identified an included union over a high frequency use target, recorded no signs of failure, specified no action and then successfully defended a subsequent failure causing death/damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok @EdwardC  and @Gary Prentice I see what you are saying.  Based on previous cases (which set a precedence for new similar cases ) is seems the law is unfair but a necessary evil with report writing. I have a question.

 

In the terms of reference of a tree report, It could go something like this.

 

"I have been asked by Mr ****** of ****** ******  ******* *****  to inspect the trees on his property and report on their condition, and give recommendations of any works regarded as 

1 Necessary to ensure the continuing health of the trees.

 2.In the interests of Health and Safety.

3. In the interests of good Arboricultural practice.

 

So the terms of reference should instead be worded how.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paul Cleaver said:

Ok @EdwardC  and @Gary Prentice I see what you are saying.  Based on previous cases (which set a precedence for new similar cases ) is seems the law is unfair but a necessary evil with report writing. I have a question.

 

In the terms of reference of a tree report, It could go something like this.

 

"I have been asked by Mr ****** of ****** ******  ******* *****  to inspect the trees on his property and report on their condition, and give recommendations of any works regarded as 

1 Necessary to ensure the continuing health of the trees.

 2.In the interests of Health and Safety.

3. In the interests of good Arboricultural practice.

 

So the terms of reference should instead be worded how.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have you got a copy of the AAs terms and conditions for Arb consultants? 

The best £25 or so that you'll ever spend. 

WWW.TREES.ORG.UK

A source of publications, guidance notes and leaflets for arboriculturists. Competitively priced available to members...

Not ducking the question but H&S becomes so involved once you're trying to cover yourself because you end up introducing everything that you consider in your decision making process. ( occupation frequency/ fixed targets and their value/ size of part likely to fail etc etc) If you're not careful the client holds you responsible for the 1" diameter/<1m dead branch that you didn't see in the dense foliage that then cracks the pane in his greenhouse.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

Have you got a copy of the AAs terms and conditions for Arb consultants? 

The best £25 or so that you'll ever spend. 

WWW.TREES.ORG.UK

A source of publications, guidance notes and leaflets for arboriculturists. Competitively priced available to members...

Not ducking the question but H&S becomes so involved once you're trying to cover yourself because you end up introducing everything that you consider in your decision making process. ( occupation frequency/ fixed targets and their value/ size of part likely to fail etc etc) If you're not careful the client holds you responsible for the 1" diameter/<1m dead branch that you didn't see in the dense foliage that then cracks the pane in his greenhouse.)

No I haven't Garry  sounds like I should - thanks for the imput

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


  •  

  • Featured Adverts

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.