Jump to content
geridam@aol.com

Huge Oak Fallen

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Billhook said:

 

 

Meanwhile on the plus side..................

Looks like it might be a nice day . 🙂

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

If they go down that route (root 😂) there may well further expense in replanting / replacing the TPO tree too. 
 

Make it safe and retain ‘as is’ (if appropriate) would avoid costs associated with stump grinding, replanting and future TPO liabilities. 

My thoughts exactly - lots of pics on tree and restrain the stump so it does 'nt nicely flop back in the hole so that years later a virtuous and zealous TO doesnt come round n see a ' felled TPO tree stump' 🤔  k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mick Dempsey said:

 

Surely if it’s fallen over the deal is off regarding TPOs?
 

Just crack on.

 

 

Not quite as straight forward as that. 
 

Fallen over may result in tree ‘death’, but it’s not inevitable - TPO implications may very appropriately still apply (subject to relevant exemptions of course.)

 

Maybe a circumstance like this might give rise to an answer to the long standing question of right to abate a TPO’d tree without recourse to LA application. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lowestoft Firewood said:

The tree is dead now so clearly not covered by TPO.

 

Not exactly a difficult tree just a lot of cutting. 

When would you say it became ‘dead’ then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can still have a tpo on a log.
Yes.
A dead log.
Google it.
That group which did all the living archaeology on bbc?
One Xmas episode they went to cut up a log in a field.
Fortunately failing, as the log had a tpo/preservation order on it.
🤣

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lowestoft Firewood said:

Hold the line while I perform an autopsy. 

No need.....  It was a rhetorical question 😃

 

There is no specification for orientation of a tree within the TPO legislation.  It could just as easily be horizontal and remain equally as subject to the TPO as it might be in the vertical plane.  

 

"Pheonix Trees"  https://www.futurewoodlands.org.uk/assets/downloads/The-Ecology-of-Phoenix-Trees-in-Scotland.pdf

 

Quote from Summary page v/vi:  "...phoenix trees are a serious ecological phenomenon. They are also attractive and interesting trees that foresters and ecologists should appreciate better, and should bring to the attention of the wider public..."

 

(I'm more interested in the potential for the encroached party to remedy the trespass without recourse to LA application / consent since it might provide some answers to long standing questions - but that's an aside)

 

To assume it is 'dead' at the point of losing its root anchorage and upright orientation would be - well, reckless.  

 

To act upon such an assumption on the basis that there might be an exception to TPO legislation could be unlawful.

 

I've just found a quick tinterweb screen shot to illustrate the point since I don't have time to search back through photo files to find a suitable example of an Oak, fallen and commencing the new phases of a life cycle which could continue for centuries.  

 

I refer back to my comment on page 1 - "...Since you’ve now said it has a TPO you might want to consider the implications..."

 

There's more to this than simply seeking a cheap solution for removing the timber - "cheap" options  could result in more expensive consequences if all aspects of the scenario are not properly considered.

 

 

 

 

Screenshot 2021-02-23 at 15.30.00.png

Edited by kevinjohnsonmbe
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

No need.....  It was a rhetorical question 😃

 

There is no specification for orientation of a tree within the TPO legislation.  It could just as easily be horizontal and remain equally as subject to the TPO as it might be in the vertical plane.  

 

(I'm more interested in the potential for the encroached party to remedy the trespass without recourse to LA application / consent since it might provide some answers to long standing questions - but that's an aside)

 

To assume it is 'dead' at the point of losing its root anchorage and upright orientation would be - well, reckless.  

 

To act upon such an assumption on the basis that there might be an exception to TPO legislation could be unlawful.

 

I've just found a quick tinterweb screen shot to illustrate the point since I don't have time to search back through photo files to find a suitable example of an Oak, fallen and commencing the new phases of a life cycle which could continue for centuries.  

 

I refer back to my comment on page 1 - "...Since you’ve now said it has a TPO you might want to consider the implications..."

 

There's more to this than simply seeking a cheap solution for removing the timber - "cheap" options  could result in more expensive consequences if all aspects of the scenario are not properly considered.

 

 

 

 

Screenshot 2021-02-23 at 15.30.00.png

I never knew it could get this deep just over a fallen tree 😃

 

Fascinating!

 

I suppose most councils' guidance on TPOs is actually pretty wafty when you re-read it with a more sceptical  / cynical eye.

 

"What happens if a protected tree is dead, dying or dangerous? One of the exemptions from the requirement to obtain formal consent to work on a protected tree, is where the work is required to deal with a dead, dying or dangerous tree, which may involve pruning or complete removal. Please be aware that the burden of proof rests with the tree owner to prove that the tree is dead, dying or dangerous. If you are at all unsure, you are advised to contact a competent arborist or an arboricultural consultant. Unless the danger is imminent, for example the tree is about to fall across a road, you should give the council 5 days notice before undertaking any work. It would be prudent to take photographs beforehand as a record. There is also a duty to plant a replacement tree for each dead, dying or dangerous tree removed although the council may dispense with this duty if a written request is made.If you are in doubt about any of these issues, you should seek independent legal advice."

 

Be interesting to see a TO in this case try and argue that the tree is potentially alive and shouldn't be removed 😄

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

No need.....  It was a rhetorical question 😃

 

There is no specification for orientation of a tree within the TPO legislation.  It could just as easily be horizontal and remain equally as subject to the TPO as it might be in the vertical plane.  

 

"Pheonix Trees"  https://www.futurewoodlands.org.uk/assets/downloads/The-Ecology-of-Phoenix-Trees-in-Scotland.pdf

 

Quote from Summary page v/vi:  "...phoenix trees are a serious ecological phenomenon. They are also attractive and interesting trees that foresters and ecologists should appreciate better, and should bring to the attention of the wider public..."

 

(I'm more interested in the potential for the encroached party to remedy the trespass without recourse to LA application / consent since it might provide some answers to long standing questions - but that's an aside)

 

To assume it is 'dead' at the point of losing its root anchorage and upright orientation would be - well, reckless.  

 

To act upon such an assumption on the basis that there might be an exception to TPO legislation could be unlawful.

 

I've just found a quick tinterweb screen shot to illustrate the point since I don't have time to search back through photo files to find a suitable example of an Oak, fallen and commencing the new phases of a life cycle which could continue for centuries.  

 

I refer back to my comment on page 1 - "...Since you’ve now said it has a TPO you might want to consider the implications..."

 

There's more to this than simply seeking a cheap solution for removing the timber - "cheap" options  could result in more expensive consequences if all aspects of the scenario are not properly considered.

 

 

 

 

Screenshot 2021-02-23 at 15.30.00.png

Kevin, be serious, no one is going to be prosecuted for removing that fallen oak.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lowestoft Firewood said:

I never knew it could get this deep just over a fallen tree 😃

 

Fascinating!

 

I suppose most councils' guidance on TPOs is actually pretty wafty when you re-read it with a more sceptical  / cynical eye.

 

"What happens if a protected tree is dead, dying or dangerous? One of the exemptions from the requirement to obtain formal consent to work on a protected tree, is where the work is required to deal with a dead, dying or dangerous tree, which may involve pruning or complete removal. Please be aware that the burden of proof rests with the tree owner to prove that the tree is dead, dying or dangerous. If you are at all unsure, you are advised to contact a competent arborist or an arboricultural consultant. Unless the danger is imminent, for example the tree is about to fall across a road, you should give the council 5 days notice before undertaking any work. It would be prudent to take photographs beforehand as a record. There is also a duty to plant a replacement tree for each dead, dying or dangerous tree removed although the council may dispense with this duty if a written request is made.If you are in doubt about any of these issues, you should seek independent legal advice."

 

Be interesting to see a TO in this case try and argue that the tree is potentially alive and shouldn't be removed 😄

2 key phrases jumped straight out at me from your cut & paste text!

 

(1) most councils' guidance on TPOs is actually pretty wafty - maybe true, may also be out of date and incorrectly stated.

(2) a competent arborist or an arboricultural consultant - what is a 'competent' arborist? (rhetorical (again))

 

Can't help but think it would be MORE interesting to see someone try and argue that it is (or when it became) dead.  

 

It would be easy enough to state that it could not be conclusively shown as being dead, and since 'dying' is no longer an exception, and that the burden of proof would rest with the tree owner / contractor rather than the TO light steps would be well advised.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Featured Adverts

  • Tip site reviews

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.