Indeed. The technical considerations about cable bracing are one issue. The
legalities of TPOs are another.
The intriguing thing - to me from afar - is the interplay of legal arguments.
If the REAL argument is to minimize the costs incurred by the owner then the
cable brace is a better option. Say owner applies to fell becuase a visting
arb from the US having imbibed generously in Napa with JQ advises that that
weak fork is likely to fail and damage the winery. Well felling is expensive
but, gotta protect that winery. The well informed TO says, hold on I won't
give you an order te fell. I cannot order you to cable, but if you do it
saves you a pot compared to removal AND the winery is reasonably safe.
Sounds like problem solving. Say on the other hand that the REAL reason to
fell is to expand the winery and get rid of the damned TPOd tree. The cost
of cabling seesm like a sham excuse becuase it's much less than removal. So
becuase there is no authority to order the cable will the courts allow the
sham? And just how many angels are on the head of that pin?
----- Original Message -----
From: John Hearne
To: UK Tree Care
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:57 AM
Subject: RE: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned]
Scott:
> Is it really likely the cable brace will preserve the tree from
failure of >that weal fork? Is it sort or marginally likely that the
cable brace might >increase the failure risk of other tree parts? Os ot
a 100% certainty that >if we cut the tree down it's gone?
Point taken and accepted. But the thread was touching on requiring the
owners of protected trees to undertake cabling work. You simply could
not do so without the sort of supporting data you accurately identified
as being absent from my posting.
And, as Edmund alluded to - work to dangerous trees is exempt from TPOs
under S198(6)(a) . That is lopping/topping/uprooting etc is exempt.
What's more, there is no 'as far as may be necessary' in there is for
S198 (6)(b) - the 'nuisance' clause. It may be that the minute you
recommend a brace or cable you concede the tree can be felled under the
exemption clause.
I may be wrong about this?
John Hearne
Tree Officer
New Forest National Park Authority
South Efford House
Milford Road
Everton
Hampshire
SO41 0JD
Telephone 01590 646677
Fax 01590 646601
______________________________________________________________________
This email contains information intended for the addressee only. It may be
confidential and may be the subject of legal and /or professional privilege.
Any dissemination, distribution, copyright or use of this communication
without prior permission of the addressee is strictly prohibited. Any views
or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the New Forest National Park Authority. Although this
email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other
defects which might affect any computer or IT system into which they are
received, no responsibility is accepted by the New Forest National Park
Authority for any loss or damage arising in any way from the receipt or use
thereof. Computer systems of this Authority may be monitored and
communications carried out on them recorded, to secure the effective
operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.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/
--
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/
