Is this tree going to die and dangerous

[Bigben143]

Hi I'm after some advice, is this oak tree dieing ? If so will it be dangerous any time soon? This was recently done in the last week. 

 

Thank you 

[Stubby]

7 hours ago, AHPP said:

Didn’t really answer my question unless I’m missing something.

There is no crime as Mark B pointed out  ,  and I quote " your tree , your responsibility , you and your neighbors want it gone , no TPO .  Why didn't you just have it removed "  

Edited March 19, 2021 by Stubby

[daltontrees]

On 18/03/2021 at 11:14, Chris at eden said:

You need to get some proper advice on this realistically.  You cant get a proper assessment by posting a pic on here.  If it falls and injures someone in the meantime you will be liable.  Irrespective of the TPO.  The only way you can shift any liability toward the council is with an application supported by an expert report.                              

That's pretty much it, good of you to take the time to explain it all without regard to who has the moral high ground.

 

The only thing I'd add is that if it all gets embroiled in a lengthy appeal there is still the 'dangerous' exemption for removing bits of it (but I can't imagine it getting dangerous enough for complete removal even if it is dead. But the OP would be well advised to get paid for advice from a consultant that the exemption is to be used validly. Before doing the work.

 

Like you, Chris, I wouldn't touch this case, but for slightly different reasons. I don't mind blooding the nose of a local TO if it's merited, but I'd rather not get the reputation of being a hired gun because it casts doubt on my prefessionalism for future cases.

Edited March 19, 2021 by daltontrees

[daltontrees]

BTW I'd say this tree will bounce back, the ringing hasn't been done thoroughly enough. Seen worse survive. Saw one last week that was completely debarked and has reconnected over a foot gap. In fact, I signed it off as safe.

 

Also bridge graft would possibly succeed.

[agg221]

The key point for me is that this tree is not dead (even if it dies later), and it has a TPO on it.

 

I think I understand the OP's original objective - to kill the tree while it was legal to do so. A TPO could not have been applied to a dead tree, so if he had killed it before the TPO came into force, it would not have come into force. He did not have the resources to get it felled so he attempted to kill it by ring-barking.

 

In my (non-professional but fairly educated) opinion, the OP has not cut deeply enough to kill the tree. There is now photographic evidence to this effect. The tree can therefore be regarded as still living and subject to a TPO. I cannot comment on what work can now be insisted upon (bridge grafting etc) but if this is needed, it will incur extra cost and if I was the TO, knowing how the tree had been damaged in the first place, I would be insisting on anything within my powers to achieve its survival and taking particular care to inspect on a regular basis and ensure that all due aftercare was in place. The likely outcome is therefore that the tree stays and looks more of a mess than it would have done if it had been left alone. Since it is not dead (even if it subsequently dies) I would be insisting on replacement if it does.

 

I think the OP has created himself an enemy in his local TO; has created himself an eyesore and may have incurred himself some cost. Therefore, in summary, I think he has failed in his objective.

 

Alec

 

 

Edited March 19, 2021 by agg221

[daltontrees]

On 17/03/2021 at 22:12, monkeybusiness said:

If you want to be sure then I'd cut through it from the side furthest away from your house until your saw sticks in the cut. It'll definitely not live then, or be of any use driving mounted implements. 

Sure of what? Prosecution for wilful damage, or even worse wilful destruction? Just adding a couple of zeros to the fine.

[oldwoodcutter]

Leaving the tree huggers, John the Baptists , and holy joes to one side for a moment, big bad Ben made a nice neat job of that top cut, almost faultless as you might say.

[Marc Lewis]

As Mark and Stubby asked, why did you not have it felled when you had the opportunity?

[Paddy1000111]

Something is very fishy here. So you own the land and the tree and there was no TPO (and definitely no pto). The tree tried to assassinate someones gran so you wanted to cut it down (when for less price and stress you could have had it dead wooded and branches checked but each to their own) and then suddenly there was an emergency TPO but just before that you girdled it? This kind of smells of a conservation area or you knew about the TPO when you girdled it. No-one normal goes "I want this tree cut down so I'm going to girdle it first". Personally I would brace for a nice cuddly law suit. Either you are nuts and girdled a tree for a laugh (probably after watching wranglerstar do it) which makes no sense or you knew about the conservation area and/or TPO and broke the law, I would suggest the latter. 

 

I'm not a "Tree hugger", it's your tree so do as you wish (although it's nice to keep large trees as there's less and less) but you wanted advice and my advice is to brace yourself for funding a new council toy and possibly getting a criminal record. To be fair, you're even providing your own evidence for their fight

Edited March 19, 2021 by Paddy1000111

[monkeybusiness]

5 hours ago, daltontrees said:

Sure of what? Prosecution for wilful damage, or even worse wilful destruction? Just adding a couple of zeros to the fine.

This thread confuses me - answers aren’t in order so don’t appear to make sense. For clarity I should have quoted the OP’s post that appeared before my (tongue-in-cheek) reply - ‘I'm not trolling I am just seeing if I have done enough that the tree will die. So local council can't keep the pto on the tree as they put the pto on it even seeing that to it’.

(I should make it clear that any ‘advice’ I put forward on this or any other Internet forums should only ever be taken with a pinch of salt).

Apologies for any confusion, or appearing to take myself too seriously...

[BonzerBob]

10 hours ago, monkeybusiness said:

This thread confuses me - answers aren’t in order so don’t appear to make sense....

The default setting seems to be "sort by votes" now rather than "sort by date", the button is on the right of the screen under the pictures of the OP's endeavours, sadly they seem at the top of every page now so there's no getting away from them.