UKTC Archive

RE: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned]

Subject: RE: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned]
From: Ian May
Date: Dec 21 2006 12:58:10

-----Original Message-----
From: Andersonarb@xxxx.com [mailto:Andersonarb@xxxx.com] 
Sent: 21 December 2006 09:14
To: uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
Subject: Re: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned]

 I think you're missing the point here Jonathan. The TPO legislation
does  not permit the LPA to "demand" any sort of maintenance work. It
may be an  inadequacy of the TPO system but if a tree has a fault that
requires maintenance  work, the owner is the only one who can specify
work as it is at his all to be  done entirely at his expense.  Why
should he be obliged to go and lay out a pile of loot for cable bracing
when he doesn't want the tree? Where will it end? 
 Bill.


If the focus of the applicant's justification for losing the tree is
down to the cost of maintaining the cable then surely the argument
doesn't stack up against the vastly more significant cost of felling the
tree, even if this financial decision was based on a projection of
cabling maintenance visits throughout the remaining life expectancy of
the tree. The cost of these visits could reasonably be calculated upon
the median between the worst case and the best case cost per inspection
visit multiplied by a reasonable frequency of projected inspection
visits against the cost of felling (all at todays prices). In theory the
cost of either operation would rise in parallel and therefore should not
be factored unless say the materials involved become premium
commodities.  
Without making the calculations I would intuitively suggest that felling
would be the more expensive option and this would discredit the
justification to fell particularly as the lifetime maintenance costs
relating to this tree are unlikely to be the current tree owner's
because of the transient nature of home ownership.

I was trying to find a bricks and mortar comparative analogy. The
closest I could come up with was; A listed building owner wants to
demolish his building because he will not accept the costs of
maintaining a safe structure. Such requests are invariably denied but
here's where the comparison fails because the LPA can serve a repairs
notice to require the work to a listed building, although as you
highlight Bill, this is not an option with TPO trees.

I find that the righteous indignation of some protected tree owners
often conceals another agenda though sometimes this sort of posturing
simply indicates a difficulty with authority.  

Regards Ian.................... 

CONFIDENTIALITY & DISCLAIMER NOTICE

This email and any attachments are intended only for the individual or entity 
to which they are addressed and may be confidential.

If this email has been sent to you in error, please accept our apologies and 
inform the sender, delete the message and destroy all copies. Unauthorised 
copying, distribution or other use of the information it contains is strictly 
prohibited. 

The content of email to and from the Council may be monitored for reasons of 
good business practice and for monitoring compliance with the Council?s staff 
policies.  Email monitoring / blocking software may also be used.

Please note that under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and related 
legislation, the Council may be required to disclose information contained in 
any email or other correspondence and that complete confidentiality cannot be 
guaranteed.

This footnote confirms that this email has been swept by the MessageLabs 
Email Security System for the presence of computer viruses.  We advise that 
in keeping with good ICT practice you should confirm for yourself that this 
email and attachments are virus free.

Rushmoor Borough Council
http://www.rushmoor.gov.uk


-- 
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/