On 20/12/06, Andersonarb@xxxx.com <Andersonarb@xxxx.com> wrote:
In a message dated 20/12/2006 13:56:40 GMT Standard Time,
cookleylandscapes@xxxxxx.com writes:
One stem leans toward a house the other a road. It is for a TPO appeal.
If you think the installation is genuinely supporting the tree, then the TPO
cannot require the installation, so its condition is irrelevant unless the
LA are offering to fund the ongoing maintenance of the brace. (And
guaranteeing
the outcome of the installation?).
The 1994 review of TPOs was rejected by the Govt on the grounds that
enabling LAs to oblige TPOd tree owners to undertake maintenance work was
just too
burdensome. (Mynors)
Bill.
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
Its a bit more complicated than that, tree was braced in 2003 as part
of works following an unsucessful appeal to fell. The tree owner now
wants to fell the tree on the grounds of cost of maintaining brace.
There does not appear to be any obvious signs of the fork spliting apart.
By the sounds of it non invasive rope bracing is not very good. I have
personally never been a great fan of bracing of any kind and have
never specified it.
Thanks for your all your comments and I hope you have a good xmas and new
year.
--
Jonathan Mills
Cookley Landscapes and Arboricultural Consultants
17 Westhead Road North
Cookley
Kidderminster
01562 851054
07944 848051
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
