Is this tree safe?

[Craig F-J]

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.

 

So, in a roundabout sort of way, could it be that they are saying prune/reduce/make safe, but do not remove 100 % of the tree??

[Craig F-J]

And then i read this post ......

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.

[toprotter]

If a tree has been tpo'ed after a certain date and it fails etc is'nt there a clause '5' I think?

that enables the council get out of jail.....?

[Riggerbear]

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.

 

I had 18 years climbing and on the saw before i felt i had enough qualifications and experience to start any consultancy work. There are a few of us about that have served the time before changing caps.

[Arctostaphylos uva-ursi]

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.

 

Whoa! sweeping gneralisation. Look out!

I first worked as a forester, then a tree surgeon before going to university to study arboriculture. 80% of my work is consultancy and 20% tree surgery. I enjoy the latter far more but the consultancy work pays well.

I could equally say that many tree surgeons know how to weild a saw but when it comes to diagnosis of problems they are found lacking. Some can't even tell the difference between a sycamore and a horse chestnut!

[Peter]

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.

 

That is the official position of all LAs now anyway.

FWIW, according to a court ruling, if a tree is deemed dangerous it must be dangerous now, so putting an application in and waiting 6 weeks for a decision is not acceptable.

If it's dangerous, get the 5 day notification in and then fell it. Document what you have done and why, as long as it is dangerous there can be no comeback from the LA. Especially if they don't have a tree officer.............

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Whoa! sweeping gneralisation. Look out!

I first worked as a forester, then a tree surgeon before going to university to study arboriculture. 80% of my work is consultancy and 20% tree surgery. I enjoy the latter far more but the consultancy work pays well.

I could equally say that many tree surgeons know how to weild a saw but when it comes to diagnosis of problems they are found lacking. Some can't even tell the difference between a sycamore and a horse chestnut!

[Perkins]

Ok there's a new development on this, please see photos below.

 

Anybody concur that this is bleeding canker?

 

Anybody know how I might get it confirmed without paying a consultant?

 

I've informed the Forest Research centre and given them the postcode.

 

 

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

honey fungus is just as likely

[Perkins]

Really? I never considered that. There isn't any bootlace mycelium **** growing on it.

 

Anyway the Forest Research Centre in Scotland said they can diagnose the disease if I send them a sample of the bark, including both the discoloured and normal tissues, so that's worth knowing. Looks like I can get my free diagnosis afterall.