In a message dated 20/12/2007 12:26:59 GMT Standard Time,
Ben.Oates@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.gov.uk writes:
So now LPAs know that alternative engineering solutions are relevant
when determining whether the tree should be cut down.
Hoo-flippin-ray!
In short 'it's not the tree it's the building,' as some have been banging on
for years. As I see it this doesn't mean that a tree that's hard against a
wall and is pushing said wall over isn't responsible; it's blindingly obvious
that it is, but those trees that are some distance away and accused of
extracting moisture and thus contributing to the building's demise are of
course
not responsible.
And that's blindingly obvious too.
These 'engineering solutions' shouldn't mean importing vast quantities of
'engineering-nous,' they just mean building an adequate foundation in the
first
place.
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/
