UKTC Archive

RE: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned]

Subject: RE: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned]
From: Ian May
Date: Dec 22 2006 12:59:15
IM. Insertions within
-----Original Message-----
From: [] 
Sent: 21 December 2006 18:09
Subject: Re: Non invasive cable brace[Scanned]

 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

IM. Very few Authorities offer listed building grants nowadays.

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.

IM. Listed buildings tend to be viewed as a liability.
We have a wonderful old building in Aldershot (can't mention names being
a public forum) owned by the crown but we can't enforce its reparation
because it's owned by the crown and despite the recent removal of crown
immunity we cannot enforce it because the crown cannot prosecute the

 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.

IM. I have a lot of sympathy with the human rights angle perceived or
otherwise and the approach of overzealous tree officers can be
counter-productive towards tree protection but while I accept this is an
unscientific concept try to imagine the quality of the urban landscape
without TPOs if all property owners adopted a nimby attitude to trees.
The diplomatic tree officer will try to engender "ownership" of tree
protection principles by winning hearts and minds. We won't do that by
brandishing a large wooden stick but we won't be taken seriously if we
do not have some statutory controls in our tool box. As an aside,
recently I've been using the global warming card to counter the
excessive shade argument with some success. Fundamentally though,
developers should be getting the relationship right between trees and
structures by good design and where they do so the anecdotal evidence is
that their new build sells quickly with obvious advantages. I think
generally the will exists to get it right within the system we have.
 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.

IM. One of the biggest problems we face is the frequency of movements
within the housing market with each new owner keen to make changes and
"add value". Trees are a soft target and a relatively cheap change to
make. The optimum choice of property for those that appreciate a wooded
setting is diminishing.

 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. (  Bill. 

IM. I stand by my earlier view that if the cost of maintaining a brace
was given as the ONLY justification for felling the Pine tree I would
argue that felling would be more expensive and so discredits the
justification. As to the frequency of inspections I would refer to the
Duty of Care on all of us (except the crown of course) under the
Occupiers Liability Act and suggest it would be prudent to monitor all
significant defects throughout the tree at least every 4-5 years. It is
therefore entirely possible that the cable could be checked by the
arborist carrying out deadwood removal under exempt works. I don't have
home movement statistics but it is also quite likely the property would
change hands within that time and the new owner might have a more
charitable view of the tree. The opportunity for a reasonable approach
would be lost if the LPA simply capitulated and allowed the felling.

I always enjoy our debates Bill, Merry Christmas.


This email and any attachments are intended only for the individual or entity 
to which they are addressed and may be confidential.

If this email has been sent to you in error, please accept our apologies and 
inform the sender, delete the message and destroy all copies. Unauthorised 
copying, distribution or other use of the information it contains is strictly 

The content of email to and from the Council may be monitored for reasons of 
good business practice and for monitoring compliance with the Council?s staff 
policies.  Email monitoring / blocking software may also be used.

Please note that under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and related 
legislation, the Council may be required to disclose information contained in 
any email or other correspondence and that complete confidentiality cannot be 

This footnote confirms that this email has been swept by the MessageLabs 
Email Security System for the presence of computer viruses.  We advise that 
in keeping with good ICT practice you should confirm for yourself that this 
email and attachments are virus free.

Rushmoor Borough Council

The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre