Redwood die back.

[colwoodlandcare]

Been watching this redwood from the place I work. It's on the neighbours property. Every year it's been in more and more decline and now has a slight lean on towards my customers property.

The old tree officer said to them it was fine and re spouting but I can say there has been none of that.

 

At its current rate of decline in 3 years there will be nothing left. Will it manage to stay up or after it has died will it start falling appart?

 

 

Sent using Arbtalk Mobile App

http://Www.colwoodlandcare.co.uk

[testcricket01]

[ATTACH]130877[/ATTACH]

Been watching this redwood from the place I work. It's on the neighbours property. Every year it's been in more and more decline and now has a slight lean on towards my customers property.

The old tree officer said to them it was fine and re spouting but I can say there has been none of that.

 

At its current rate of decline in 3 years there will be nothing left. Will it manage to stay up or after it has died will it start falling appart?

 

 

Sent using Arbtalk Mobile App

Colwood - Home

 

The limbs become very brittle very quickly once dead ive found, you wouldnt want a dead one near your house when it starts snowing heavily.

[Paul Cleaver]

honey fungus can kill these trees - unusual for such a big tree I know but true - better have a look round the roots - the old tree officer needs to retire.

 

get an arborist to do so

Edited August 1, 2013 by Paul Cleaver
add on

[colwoodlandcare]

There was the slight possibility of honey fungus that popped a fruit body up on the drive but with other trees around it could have been from those.

So am I right in thinking once it does die the fact it has a slight lean as well it will more than likely go over?

 

 

Sent using Arbtalk Mobile App

http://Www.colwoodlandcare.co.uk

[Paul Cleaver]

There was the slight possibility of honey fungus that popped a fruit body up on the drive but with other trees around it could have been from those.

So am I right in thinking once it does die the fact it has a slight lean as well it will more than likely go over?

 

 

Sent using Arbtalk Mobile App

Colwood - Home

 

if your sure its starting to lean then its dangerous - no doubt - when it falls is a lottery but the danger signs are there - Get an arborist in to confirm this with a report then contact the tree officer.

[daltontrees]

if your sure its starting to lean then its dangerous - no doubt - when it falls is a lottery but the danger signs are there - Get an arborist in to confirm this with a report then contact the tree officer.

 

And if the report says there is more than 1/10,000 chance of it coming down within the next year and hitting something or someone you might be within your rights to see to it right away, informing rather than asking the tree officer (5 days notice required, I think). But if you go down that route (the dead, dying or dangerous route) the onus is on the client to be able to prove retrospectively tha tthe tree had been an unacceptable risk.

[sloth]

And if the report says there is more than 1/10,000 chance of it coming down within the next year and hitting something or someone you might be within your rights to see to it right away, informing rather than asking the tree officer (5 days notice required, I think). But if you go down that route (the dead, dying or dangerous route) the onus is on the client to be able to prove retrospectively tha tthe tree had been an unacceptable risk.

 

Maybe I'm missing a point here, but wouldn't you only try to predict a numerical likelihood of failure such as 1:10,000 if using a recognized system (such as QTRA) which seeks to quantify risk? If using THREATS, or some other method, or simply giving an opinion on whether risk is 'acceptable or not' no mention need be made of numbers. In my opinion it would still be valid in a single tree case such as this to say something along the lines of 'due to a recent shift in rootplate and subsequent movement of the whole tree to a new and unaccustomed angle of lean, the high risk of damage posed to nearby targets (occupied house) within the projected drop zone poses an unacceptably high level of risk of failure. An immediate fell is recommended.'

Personally I am not happy to express likelihood of failure in such a fashion without applying a known and accepted method of doing so, and having had no QTRA training, it's something I steer clear of!

Ps. Thank you for contributions to the recent QTRA thread which Acer Ventura kindly started and responded to. It made for some good reading, and has certainly piqued my interest in getting trained at some point.

[daltontrees]

Maybe I'm missing a point here, but wouldn't you only try to predict a numerical likelihood of failure such as 1:10,000 if using a recognized system (such as QTRA) which seeks to quantify risk? If using THREATS, or some other method, or simply giving an opinion on whether risk is 'acceptable or not' no mention need be made of numbers. In my opinion it would still be valid in a single tree case such as this to say something along the lines of 'due to a recent shift in rootplate and subsequent movement of the whole tree to a new and unaccustomed angle of lean, the high risk of damage posed to nearby targets (occupied house) within the projected drop zone poses an unacceptably high level of risk of failure. An immediate fell is recommended.'

Personally I am not happy to express likelihood of failure in such a fashion without applying a known and accepted method of doing so, and having had no QTRA training, it's something I steer clear of!

Ps. Thank you for contributions to the recent QTRA thread which Acer Ventura kindly started and responded to. It made for some good reading, and has certainly piqued my interest in getting trained at some point.

 

It's a big subject, I just mentioned the threshold set by the HSE. How anyone quantifies it (QTRA, THREATS, DIY-quantification, whatever) doesn't matter so much. Making a statement like you suggest which contains the terms 'high risk' and 'unacceptably high level of risk of failure' is loaded with subjective or unquantified and undefined terms. If I was making a general statement like that (as my reports tend to do) it is basically saying the same thing but less ambiguously such as 'following evidence gathered during recent inspection it can be concluded that the likelihood of failure, when combined with the frequency of presence of targets and the severity of harm/damage that could be caused the overall risk falls within the HSE's 'unacceptable' category'.

 

You can probably tell from that that I am a quantifier and that I have read not only the QTRA stuff but the stuff that it is based on. You don't need QTRA training for that.

 

So really I wold just be saying in this case (and it is hypothetical since I have only read a brief description and seen a photo of the tree) there's say someone present beneath the tree's fall zone 1/100th of the time, it will kill them outright if it lands on them and (the tricky bit) there is a 1/10 chance of it coming down before the next annual inspection, the risk is 1/100 x 1/1 x 1/10 = 1/1,000. The TO can try all he wants to shoot down the figures but he would have to be pursuing a prosecution for unlawful removal of a protected tree and would need to be ballsy to refute the logic behind the decision to fell if it is backed up be the evidence of lean. rootplate disturbance, possibly honey fungus, rapid dieback. All those elements affect only the 'chance of it coming down' element of the risk calculation. The other elements are much much clearer.

 

Keeping it on-thread, I would have the tree down if the evidence backed up a risk assessment. I wouldn't be asking the TO, I'd be telling him. Hypothetically speaking.

[Gary Prentice]

And if the report says there is more than 1/10,000 chance of it coming down within the next year and hitting something or someone you might be within your rights to see to it right away, informing rather than asking the tree officer (5 days notice required, I think). But if you go down that route (the dead, dying or dangerous route) the onus is on the client to be able to prove retrospectively tha tthe tree had been an unacceptable risk.

 

Not trying to be pedantic and I know we have got more than used to using the exemptions wording. But the 'dying' part is no longer applicable.(as an exemption for the five day notice)

[Matthew Corran]

I'm not sure where the tree is but I think the dead, dying or dangerous exemption still applies in Wales.

[daltontrees]

Not trying to be pedantic and I know we have got more than used to using the exemptions wording. But the 'dying' part is no longer applicable.(as an exemption for the five day notice)

 

Ahh, I have been caught out using the old terminology. I was aware of a recent change but just used the familiar terms to illustrate the point about quantification of risk.

 

Up here it has always been much simpler. Trees can be removed without permissin or notice if it is urgently necessary in the interest of safety. There has never been a need to categorise why it was dangerous. But I see now from the English Regs 2012 that you have a similar overrider, 'Urgently necessary to remove an immediate risk of serious harm'. I hate to admit it but it's even better and clearer than the Scottish wording. See how well it fits in with quantification of risk and the HSE guidance?

 

You still have the 5 day rule, which we have never had.