Poor tree work in conservation area

[fagus]

+1 for Jules's post.

Poor work is poor work;report it you have done your bit then. Let the TO and the LPA sort out the priorities.

Poor tree work stands out as big as advertisement hoardings thereby advertising the work and the unqualified think that is ok for my tree.

[skyhuck]

@daltontrees -- thank you.

 

This reduction was done in the name of 'tree surgery'. If a surgeon removed your appendix with the same disregard for procedure, how would you feel?

 

You have to ask what is the local authority playing at? This must have been an approved and ticketed(?) contractor. Contact the TO and at least get them off the list.

 

Err no.

 

The LA have the option to put a TPO on any tree within the CE upon notice of intended tree works, if they chose not to apply a TPO, they have little if any control over who or how the work is carried out.

 

I'm not aware of any prosecutions for poor quality work following a CE notification. I'm not sure how such a prosecution would go???

 

Have the LA deemed the tree of low value by not placing a TPO??? or are they simply happy for the works detailed and expect them to be of high standard???

[Stubby]

Err no.

 

The LA have the option to put a TPO on any tree within the CE upon notice of intended tree works, if they chose not to apply a TPO, they have little if any control over who or how the work is carried out.

 

This is the top and bottom of it me thinks .

[penfold]

Pictures say it all.

 

Quality work as usual John:001_tongue:

[fen01]

Report by all means, but make sure it's to someone who can do something about it. The TO? They can't/won't do anything. The Planner's can't tell me which builders to use in the same way they TO can't tell a private customer who can work on their trees - that way be big corruption!

 

Stop watch for a bit have a giggle, then point at the base of the tree, mutter quietly shake your head and saying you're leave before the tree gives way😁😁.

[Adam M]

On a strictly anal basis, if the applicant notifies they want to reduce by whatever, the TO may consider that the works are reasonable, the tree is under good management and therefore a TPO is not expedient. Had the applicant stated they were going to climb a birch in spikes and do the same, and the tree was reasonable/publicly visible, that may have triggered a different response. One could argue that spiking up constitutes wilful damage however I doubt many TO's have the time nor energy to pursue. Definitely not a good advert for the standard we should expect though.

[tree-fancier123]

This thread is surely the saddest low-point of Arbtalk of the year, and it's still january.

 

Now I'm a purist and although I'm not a tree-hugger I would personally shoot anyone spiking a Birch in January, it will bleed and bleed until April, then suffer for another couple of years. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows this, and no-one who gives the slightest damn about trees or their personal professional reputation or about getting prosecuted would do it. We need trees, we don't need cowboys, an important difference. It's only a tree but we're only all in this world together and we all know that we can't trust politicians to care about anything but their own personal short-term prestige. How could Councils possibly police conservation areas, when resources are determined not by what needs to be done but by what is made available by politicians competing for popularity that is largely judged by how cheaply they can run the country?

 

Whether you should grass someone else up for doing it is maybe a sightly different matter. I'd say it's up to the conscience of the OP. If he listens to opinions of people on Arbtalk he is likely to wonder whether anyone in modern society cares about anything or anyone but themselves, and will probably drift towards that selfish indifferent attitude himself, as society is collectively doing.

 

OK Steve Bulman it's your website and just because you got an award for outstanding contribution to arboriculture doesn't mean you're not allowed to state a personal opinion here on Arbtalk. But there was something about your initial indifference, and how it spurred on the dont-give-a-fig brigade who personify the way that our industry again and again cons society and is almost inseperable from the cowboys that it sometimes berates and sometimes praises, that really gets me down this evening.

 

But in the morning I'll just get on with doing things properly for people who either care or trust me to care. It'll all make for a tiresome endless discussion in the treeless hell that we're all going to end up in together anyway.

 

Meantime I say grass the tossers up, make a diference, give a damn about someone other than yourself. That's my opinion and I'll take it to hell and back.

 

how many times have you cut down a perfectly nice tree (after checking there were no restrictions) just because someone who happened to be the owner wanted it gone, destroying beautiful nature for profit

[Stubby]

how many times have you cut down a perfectly nice tree (after checking there were no restrictions) just because someone who happened to be the owner wanted it gone, destroying beautiful nature for profit

 

Lost count .

[Mick Dempsey]

It's what I do.

[stihlmadasever]

Is there anyone here who can honestly say they havent done some horrible tree work for the sake of making money or because its what the client wants...very few if any.

Blaming gypo's for poor work is easy but in reality we do it too