UKTC Archive

Re: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned]

Subject: Re: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned]
From: Andersonarb
Date: Dec 21 2006 18:10:52
In a message dated 21/12/2006 12:58:36 GMT Standard Time, writes:

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.

As I see it Ian, the thing about listed buildings is that financial  
assistance is available and they will cover a significant chunk of the cost. 
The  only 
grant I have ever seen for tree work has come from the Peak Park and was  
aimed more at habitat preservation than actual maintenance, and was only a  
piddling 20%. The TO there, bless im, is a bit arbitrary with it and I have 
to  say 
appears to be allowed a long and flexible leash by his bosses.....
The listed building scenario is all a bit complex because the property  
market is such that any crumbling pile is likely to get a new owner who will  
restore and gentrify the property, so it will have a market value, a TPO'd 
probably hasn't got a market value.
The issue as I see it, is not to do with trees at all, it is to do with  
'Freedom.' Generally we don't want our political masters telling us what to 
cos we know they're even less likely to do the right thing than we are. At 
heart of it we have this problem that the power to wander into a person's 
garden  and demand that they grow a tree is draconian (not to mention 
bizarre) and 
 before any 'Agent of the State' exercises that power they ought to have  
demonstrably good reason.
I have to say that over the last few months I find myself coming round to  
the John Flannigan POV that TPOs should be abandoned and we simply protect 
trees. It might force all LAs to consider precisely why they should require  
anybody to grow a tree before denying them permission to remove.
As for the cost issue, well yes a cable is initially cheaper, probably, but  
if you're got to climb and inspect the damn thing every year then this will 
soon  outweigh the cost of a simple felling job. And yes I have seen trees 
4 or 5  cables in that could certainly have been felled more cheaply. And for 
what it's  worth those Belt and Braces things that Noddy was demonstrating at 
York did not  look at all cheap, even if they were reasonable. (Actually I've 
just looked; 20  quid an end and 2.40 a metre so 50 quid a length plus 
installation so say a  ton a time?)( 

The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre