Re: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned]
| Subject: | Re: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned] |
|---|---|
| From: | Robert Knott |
| Date: | Dec 21 2006 20:41:11 |
"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) " Hi Bill
Thanks for the mention, but if you look into the system in a bit more depth
then you'll find that the Gefa approach is anything from 30-120% cheaper
than all systems on the UK market apart from eye bolts, bulldogs & cable.
It's simpler to install, despite my hamfisted attempt at York, & can be a
part of treecare solutions in the UK if only we move our minds away from the
'fear of litigation' mind set that has prevailed for at least the past
20years.
We, mostly, seem quite happy to recommend varying degrees of branch removal
as a sound approach to tree maintenance in many circumstances & I'm often
surprised at how keen we are to avoid crown support as being another sound
approach.
Cheers Nod
----- Original Message -----
From: <Andersonarb@xxxx.com>
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 6:10 PM Subject: Re: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned]
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 financialassistance is available and they will cover a significant chunk of thecost. The onlygrant 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 apiddling 20%. The TO there, bless im, is a bit arbitrary with it and Ihave to sayappears to be allowed a long and flexible leash by his bosses..... The listed building scenario is all a bit complex because the propertymarket is such that any crumbling pile is likely to get a new owner whowillrestore and gentrify the property, so it will have a market value, a TPO'dtreeprobably 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 whatto docos we know they're even less likely to do the right thing than we are. Attheheart of it we have this problem that the power to wander into a person'sgarden and demand that they grow a tree is draconian (not to mentionbizarre) andbefore 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 tothe John Flannigan POV that TPOs should be abandoned and we simply protectalltrees. It might force all LAs to consider precisely why they shouldrequireanybody to grow a tree before denying them permission to remove.As for the cost issue, well yes a cable is initially cheaper, probably,butif you're got to climb and inspect the damn thing every year then thiswillsoon outweigh the cost of a simple felling job. And yes I have seen treeswith4 or 5 cables in that could certainly have been felled more cheaply. Andforwhat it's worth those Belt and Braces things that Noddy was demonstratingatYork did not look at all cheap, even if they were reasonable. (ActuallyI'vejust 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/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.26/594 - Release Date:20/12/2006
-- 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/
Current thread
- RE: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned]
Dec 21 2006 12:58:10- RE: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned]
Dec 21 2006 13:41:43- Re: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned]
Dec 21 2006 14:30:10
- Re: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned]
- RE: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned]
Dec 21 2006 15:57:41- Re: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned]
Dec 21 2006 16:50:38
- Re: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned]
- Re: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned]
Dec 21 2006 18:10:52- Re: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned]
Dec 21 2006 20:41:11- Re: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned]
Dec 21 2006 22:57:19- The elusive Mr Cullen
Dec 22 2006 11:28:51
- The elusive Mr Cullen
- RE: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned]
Dec 22 2006 10:44:58
- Re: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned]
- Re: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned]
- RE: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned]
Dec 22 2006 12:59:15 - RE: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned]
Dec 22 2006 13:03:45
- RE: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned]