Is this tree safe?

[Perkins]

Erm yes it's a Horse Chestnut but don't let that put you off your stride Hamadryad. Really interesting points so far. Thanks.

 

The problem I have here is that there is a TPO and the council don't have a designated tree officer to make a judgement. Their stance is that the tree stays unless sufficient evidence is submitted to prove the tree is unsafe. They have specified that a consultant rather than a contractor needs to be involved but that's going mean additional costs.

[ukminch]

I'd be very surprised if the council rejected an application to fell that tree. Not saying that is the solution here but with the current climate I can't see them risking an application as they then have a liability towards any damaged caused by it failing if they refuse.

 

But I've been wrong a couple of times this year.............

[Perkins]

The council have refused permission to fell and state that the owner of the tree remains liable "if the tree falls onto the main road crushing a bus full of children".

 

You would think that their legal obligation was to ensure the tree was safe before refusing permission, but this is a council we are dealing with so normal common sense doesn't apply.

[Paul Barton]

"if the tree falls onto the main road crushing a bus full of children".

 

Are those your words or are you quoting the council?

[scotspine1]

Sycamore is a poor manager of decay.

 

 

ha ha

[scotspine1]

Their stance is that the tree stays unless sufficient evidence is submitted to prove the tree is unsafe. They have specified that a consultant rather than a contractor needs to be involved but that's going mean additional costs.

 

 

Contractors know more about structural weaknesses in trees than consultants.

 

Most arb consultants have never worked on trees day in day out, year after year. They have a cheek to call themselves consultants.

 

A consultant in a hospital still carries out surgery, whereas the majority of tree consultants have never carried out the practical work in the first place, which means they are missing huge swathes of aquired experience and knowledge. In short they are acting fraudulently by implying they are more qualified to assess trees than contractors who are working with trees year in year out.

 

Even to a layman this tree is inherently unsafe, it has a major structural defect and the roots are rotting, its not rocket science.

Edited April 23, 2011 by scotspine1

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

ha ha

 

and chestnut is even worse:001_tt2:

[easy-lift guy]

Cut her down, Happy Easter.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

its not like its the only tree in this position!

[ukminch]

The council have refused permission to fell and state that the owner of the tree remains liable "if the tree falls onto the main road crushing a bus full of children".

 

You would think that their legal obligation was to ensure the tree was safe before refusing permission, but this is a council we are dealing with so normal common sense doesn't apply.

 

I'd simply send a letter back stating that they have been informed that the tree has major defects and that they are refusing to allow it to be felled, inspite of the defects that are present, meaning they MUST take responsibility as they are not allowing the tree owner to take reasonable care of the tree.

 

Or alternatively send a 5 day notice in and then someone would probably have a look at the tree and agree to fell it...........

 

R