UKTC Archive

Re: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned]

Subject: Re: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned]
From: Scott Cullen
Date: Dec 21 2006 16:50:38
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]

  > 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
  SO41 0JD
  Telephone 01590 XXXXXX
  Fax          01590 XXXXXX

  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:

  The UK Tree Care mailing list
  To unsubscribe send

  The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre

The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre