The Irton Beech Protest

[eggsarascal]

Not really, this tree was NOT planted for timber and I bet if felled it would end up as fire wood.

 

The timber he uses will be from trees planted as a crop and harvested for that purpose.

 

The house which drains are affected is around 20 years old, so built long after tree was mature. Why was the house allowed to be built there?? why were the drains not put elsewhere or protected ???

 

This dispute has cost £250K Why was that money not spent on moving the drains and leaving the tree???

 

Great deal of incompetence on the part of the LA IMO

 

Where did you read that it was a house of 20 years old that's drains were affected, i read it that the roots were affecting a sewer.

 

Saying that when i pressed "read more on this story" nothing happened so you might have more info than i can see.

[scotspine1]

update, 'snoz' is still up the tree -

 

BBC News - Mark Snow urged to abandon Yorkshire tree protest

[skyhuck]

Where did you read that it was a house of 20 years old that's drains were affected, i read it that the roots were affecting a sewer.

 

.

 

"Snoz" told me

[eggsarascal]

"Snoz" told me

 

We'll take that as gospel then

[Hodge]

I knew a guy from Leeds called snozz, he was a skater back in the day, wonder if it's the same snozz??

[scotspine1]

Here's the details -

 

https://www3.northyorks.gov.uk/n3cabinet_area/ycoastmoors_/reports_/20110831_/10mainstreetirt/10mainstreetirt.pdf

 

In May 2006 the tree frontagers brought to the attention of North Yorkshire

County Council various problems associated with a mature beech tree,

situated within the highway verge and immediately abutting the property’s

masonry wall. Problems included root ingress in to the domestic sewer,

damage to the masonry wall and nuisance caused by tree sap debris and bird

droppings.

 

moving a domestic sewer pipe is a very simple and relatively cheap job in comparison with spending £250,000 on a court case.

 

As for the sap and bird droppings - whoever made them an issue needs a major reality check.

 

 

 

 

.

Edited September 22, 2011 by scotspine1

[evergreen]

Good luck to snoz, I hope he can hang in there (no pun intended). We as a nation need to work out what our priorities are. One minute we are screaming about carbon offset, then bird poo. Oh my! wheres my water bottle and ice pack.

Edited September 22, 2011 by skyhuck
Swearing

[treebloke]

After reading the link suppied by scotspine1 it appears two reports have been done by competent arborists and both agree the only course of action is to fell the tree.

 

It is unfortunate but seems like it's due for the chop.

[skyhuck]

After reading the link suppied by scotspine1 it appears two reports have been done by competent arborists and both agree the only course of action is to fell the tree.

It is unfortunate but seems like it's due for the chop.

 

I bet neither arborist was told there was a budget of £250K to retain the tree!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I bet if they had they would have come up with options that would have been well under budget!!!

[scotspine1]

After reading the link suppied by scotspine1 it appears two reports have been done by competent arborists and both agree the only course of action is to fell the tree.

 

It is unfortunate but seems like it's due for the chop.

 

What are the two reports your referring to?

 

It looks like one company did two reports, or one report and one observational visit to comment of crown reduction options?

 

It beggars belief that an Arb Association Registered Consultant should decide the tree needs removed on account of natural incremental growth leading to direct damage to the wall. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Arb Association's motto 'cares for trees'?

 

What about suggesting a solution other than felling? move the wall, create a space in the wall for the tree to grow?

 

 

 

.

Edited September 22, 2011 by scotspine1