Beech tree with multiple brackets

[willjones]

Id personally like the tree to remain where it is,but with the decay as it Is,is it not better to fell and re plant a tree in its place for the future ?.how long really does this tree have left living in the health n safety culture we live In.plus I think when the time comes to take it down,we will take it down to ground level,grind it n there will be nothing left,no monolith,or anything else,as a lot of people don't tend to think that way,well not were we are.

[sloth]

It still has potential to outlive us, looks an ideal tree and location to monolith, perhaps with a small informative sign beside it, along with its replacement...

 

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Arbtalk mobile app

[Paul Jenks]

30% seems a rather arbitrary amount. Does the report give any lengths. Before carrying out any works I would want to be sure of the exact dimensions of the sections to come off and what is to be retained. A heavy reduction is likely to upset the tree and the symbiosis of the tree/fungi relationship and a light reduction, (30% foliar) is unlikely to mitigate the hazard.

Ensure you have a detailed specification for works agreed with the owner and the report writer and carry out the works diligently and precisely. That way the indemnification lies with the report writer not the contractor.

[daltontrees]

30% seems a rather arbitrary amount. Does the report give any lengths. Before carrying out any works I would want to be sure of the exact dimensions of the sections to come off and what is to be retained. A heavy reduction is likely to upset the tree and the symbiosis of the tree/fungi relationship and a light reduction, (30% foliar) is unlikely to mitigate the hazard.

Ensure you have a detailed specification for works agreed with the owner and the report writer and carry out the works diligently and precisely. That way the indemnification lies with the report writer not the contractor.

 

I'd very much agree with this, a 30% foliar reduction will just accelerate demise wihthout taking away anything heavy that is the real danger.

 

An uncalibrate tomograph, doesn't mean much, but the print suggests the tree is goosed with Ganoderma and who knows what else inside. And cracks.

 

AS ever, the quiestion is mostly about risk and liability. Yes, complete risk aversion and aesthetics would have the whole tree away, to the ground, now. But an assessment of risk might say (on the cemetery side)

Likely failure - large limb

target presence in weather consditions likely to cause failures - almost nil

severity of harm - serious permanent injury or death

likelihood of failure - high

Overall risk - tolerable

Overriding reasons for not reducing risk to as low as reasonably practicable? Not many

So you're heading there for not a 30% foliar reduction but a 30% lib reduction all over, particularly cemetery side. And once you get that far into a Beech canopy, regeneration is slow or unlikely, so you need to save every inner growth point. A heavy dismantle and careful avoidance of collateral damage to small growth will make it a big and difficult job.

 

Is there a building going up behind the tree and could the tree or any oart of it hit the building? If so the risk on that side is possibly -

Likely failure - whole tree

target presence in weather conditions likely to cause failures - 100% (permanent building presence)

severity of harm - £100,000 (worst case, structural damage)

likelihood of failure - moderate to high

Overall risk - high

Overriding reasons for not reducing risk to as low as reasonably practicable? No excuse.

Action required is whatever is enough to reduce the risk of basal failure to low. Again a heavy reduction, foliar and limbs.

 

Based on all that, and if there is some desire to preserve the tree and manage it down over a couple of decades, I wouldn't be thinking BS3998 reduction I'd be thinking structural reduction. At least 30% by limb length. An then regular risk re-assessment. Annual probably.