Hypothetically.. whos liable?

[treequip]

I've only had it once in 20 years.

 

How the hell do you prove the tree would have failed once its been felled?? all very subjective, IMO.

 

But that doesn't mean it shouldn't have been happening

 

When someone tells the LA they are going to embark on a course of action that could potentially end in fines of 20k the LA is duty bound to tell them that.

 

Could just be that they assume you were aware.

[Adam M]

You don't have to prove that the tree would have failed. The exemption is for dead and dangerous so that's what you need to prove.

 

apologies for resurrecting this old thread.

 

I deal with council-owned trees for an LA and am possibly getting my role expanded to include looking at 5 day exemptions, so looking for some clarification please.

 

The 'dangerous' point is that it is at risk of imminent failure, from what I understand. Imminent means to me that it's partially windblown, damaged branches, extreme decay and the like. Should the proposed works be the minimum to make a dangerous tree safe? I saw one get submitted for a lime to be felled which was noted to be dangerous due to it being hollow and as the branches were poorly attached. That was the last I saw of it, so unsure on the outcome (dealt with by a locum who i never met), but (and I'm probably wrong here), there was no quantifying how hollow it was and the reason why the branches were poorly attached was as it had been previously pollarded but hadn't been repollarded for an excessive time. Would I have been acting appropriately to play devils advocate on it and ask for proof that the hollowing was significant and that the tree should be repollarded? Especially as it has not become this state overnight, so based on available evidence was not imminently dangerous?

[Tim Williams]

could your contact with the TO be construed as a five day notice- if so the faqct the TO has refused to accept it would i imagine place the client/you out of the loop. If you were to fell the tree without the exception or permission this may well lend you in court and the judge would then have to decide whether you have committed an offence or not. I would actually air on the side of caution in that you've stated the TO said there is no evidence of heave, root lift etc and these would be the tell tale basal signs of a sudden developed lean. i often come across landowners who believe trees have suddenly developed leans especially after bad weather and 95% of them are not, they show evidence of having grown in that fashion over time eg edge trees often have a leaning form with an assymetric crown due to the shading effect of surrounding trees.

[Tim Williams]

apologies for resurrecting this old thread.

 

I deal with council-owned trees for an LA and am possibly getting my role expanded to include looking at 5 day exemptions, so looking for some clarification please.

 

The 'dangerous' point is that it is at risk of imminent failure, from what I understand. Imminent means to me that it's partially windblown, damaged branches, extreme decay and the like. Should the proposed works be the minimum to make a dangerous tree safe? I saw one get submitted for a lime to be felled which was noted to be dangerous due to it being hollow and as the branches were poorly attached. That was the last I saw of it, so unsure on the outcome (dealt with by a locum who i never met), but (and I'm probably wrong here), there was no quantifying how hollow it was and the reason why the branches were poorly attached was as it had been previously pollarded but hadn't been repollarded for an excessive time. Would I have been acting appropriately to play devils advocate on it and ask for proof that the hollowing was significant and that the tree should be repollarded? Especially as it has not become this state overnight, so based on available evidence was not imminently dangerous?

 

If it were imminently dangerous a 5 day notice would not be reasonable ie it needs doing now because it is 'imminent'. a five day notice is required where it is not imminent but would be prudent to carry out the work and unreasonable to have to go through an 8 week application process.

[Adam M]

If it were imminently dangerous a 5 day notice would not be reasonable ie it needs doing now because it is 'imminent'. a five day notice is required where it is not imminent but would be prudent to carry out the work and unreasonable to have to go through an 8 week application process.

 

Thank you!