Tree vs wall?

[Paul Barton]

Spotted this today - it made me chuckle. Obviously some disgruntled home owner has applied to fell 3 trees that were/are damaging his wall.

 

I can understand the home owners frustration, but surely the wall could have been fixed without felling the tree?

 

Oddly enough, since the signs were put up in 2008, all 3 trees are displaying serious symptoms of decline. I wonder who/what has caused that:sneaky2:

[David Humphries]

Interesting find Paul.

 

 

Can imagine the stress that this has cuased.

 

Trees and humans eh, can't live with them, can't live without them

 

 

 

.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

mmmm, so how many folk agree with the conservation of this tree?

 

I would ask for a written acknowledgment of responsibility for any injuries loss of property due to the walls collapse.

 

tpo will be off in a jiffy

[janey]

Why can't he repair the wall?

 

All it would take is a bit of ingenuity and a willingness to create "cut outs" (sorry, I don't know the technical term) to accomodate the trees. It seems like he's taken the decision to allow the wall to continue to decline out of bloody mindedness.

Edited July 4, 2011 by janey
Ridiculous amounts of typos.

[Paul Barton]

Why can't he repair the wall?

 

All it would take is a bit of ingenuity and a willingness to create "cut outs" (sorry, I don't know thetechnical term) to accomdate the trees. It seems loke he's taken the decision to allow the wall to continue to decline out of bloody mindedness.

 

Exactly

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Oh come on! it takes two to tango, and they started the BS!

[Paul Barton]

It may be BS to you, but there are 3 decent (ok, not decent any more) trees there that could be retained while the wall is simply fixed with a simple lintel bridging the roots.

[Taupotreeman]

Which was there first, the wall or the tree?

[Paul Barton]

Hard to say to be honest, they both look in the region of 60-80 years old. If I had to choose I'd say the wall.

[Taupotreeman]

To be honest, and at the risk of causing an all out arb war, I think soemtimes we go a little over board in trying to preserve trees. Looking at these ones they are going to cause damage to walls footpaths etc in the short and long term. Would it not be easier, and better on the whole, to agree to let the guy remove the trees if he replants a certain number in a better spot either in a green space or somewhere else? This is often the case here where a tree can be removed (if it doesn't have great aesthetic or notable qualities) as long as the applicant agrees to replant some semi mature saplings somewhere more suitable. This whole tree removal process and the issues within it caused the government here to look at the whole resource consent process and then slackened it right off. This now means that trees have very little protection under the resource management act. If councils had played the game of give and take a little more from the start the resource management act may never have needed to be changed at all. I value trees but i sometimes wonder if we go just a little too far.