In a message dated 21/12/2006 12:58:36 GMT Standard Time,
ian.may@xxxxxxxxx.gov.uk 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
tree
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
do
cos we know they're even less likely to do the right thing than we are. At
the
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
all
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
with
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?)(treeworker.co.uk)
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/
