UKTC Archive

Re: RE: RE: [EXTERNAL] A million miles off topic but... Tree failure potential assessment study WAS Civil cases for nuisance or damage to property

Subject: Re: RE: RE: [EXTERNAL] A million miles off topic but... Tree failure potential assessment study WAS Civil cases for nuisance or damage to property
From: Julian Morris
Date: Jan 16 2020 11:11:53
Well' advocatres w suggest it shoudl be done rathrerthan can be. As for 
design, nature doen't really design, it's a product of evolution and perhaps 
the trials of natural selection have resulted in a precautionary 
over-capacity of rooting. With full access to this trees probably flourish 
but pared back to the minimum growth may be atalled. Call it what you will. I 
thought the idea of ongoing viatality, being the tesst of adequate RPA in 
5837, is an appropriate one.

As fo semantics, I didn't say tha everyone had disagreed, but some did and 
different wording of the same principle might have had a different utcome.

Julian A. Morris - Professional Tree Services
jamtrees.co.uk  and  highhedgesscotland.com
0778 XXX XXXX - 0141 XXX XXXX


Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 5:48 PM
From: "Jim Quaife" <jq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk>
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: RE: RE: [EXTERNAL] A million miles off topic but... Tree failure 
potential assessment study WAS Civil cases for nuisance or damage to 
property

Root systems are over-designed, otherwise one would see them fail if any 
significant root mass were removed.  This comes from simple observation and 
the effect of 5837 RPAs.
I'm happy with condones, but by the insistence upon roots outside the RPA 
being "up for grabs", semantics and 5837 are uneasy bedfellows!
Jim
P.S.  While on the subject of semantics, has everyone disagreed with me 
then Julian?

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
[mailto:uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Julian Morris
Sent: 15 January 2020 16:39
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: RE: [EXTERNAL] A million miles off topic but... Tree failure 
potential assessment study WAS Civil cases for nuisance or damage to 
property

I think if Jim had said 'condones' instead of advocates and 'larger than 
necessary just for ongoing vitality' instead of 'over-designed in nature' 
no-one would have disagreed.

Julian A. Morris - Professional Tree Services
jamtrees.co.uk  and  highhedgesscotland.com
0778 XXX XXXX - 0141 XXX XXXX


Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 3:55 PM
From: "Alastair Durkin" <ADurkin@xxxxxxxxxx.gov.uk>
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Tree failure potential assessment study WAS Civil 
cases for nuisance or damage to property

Jim, Sean is accusing you of having only 'five paltry senses'. I'm sure 
you've always claimed to have a few more than that?


-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
<uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info> On Behalf Of Harrison, Sean
Sent: 15 January 2020 15:31
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Tree failure potential assessment study WAS Civil 
cases for nuisance or damage to property

Hi Jim,
Thanks for that and I agree with most of what you say. However, I do 
disagree with your point " By and large root systems are over-designed in 
nature".
Nothing in nature is 'over-designed'. We, however, make judgements about 
nature's design and we often make the mistake that because we can't see a 
purpose a purpose can't exist; but there will be a reason (way beyond our 
understanding and our five paltry senses) as to why a thing is the way it 
is.

All the best
Sean

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
<uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info> On Behalf Of Jim Quaife
Sent: 14 January 2020 19:50
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Tree failure potential assessment study WAS Civil 
cases for nuisance or damage to property

Nice idea Wayne, but no chance of enactment. By and large root systems 
are over-designed in nature, and root severance is a matter of judgement 
and not law.  BS5837 advocates the removal of perhaps two-thirds of a 
tree's root system. There are any number of instances where roots have 
been severed to an extent that raises eyebrows and yet the tree doesn't 
miss a beat.
Of course there are converse examples, but I have been in situations 
where a single root is deemed to be important and when one looks at what 
else is sustaining the tree, that notion is frankly ridiculous.
Like everything else to do with trees, root severance is a matter of 
judgement and justification.  This is an arb's stock in trade!
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
[mailto:uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson
Sent: 14 January 2020 18:38
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Tree failure potential assessment study WAS Civil 
cases for nuisance or damage to property

The main "practical" point is that there should be a law prohibiting the 
severance of tree roots. Of course, we all know that's not going to 
happen, but it should be done with full knowledge of the consequences, 
and under permit that requires real data on the potential consequences 
(including
liability) derived from sound scientific procedures (e.g., tritium 
tracing or approved equal [For the record, I have not performed this 
procedure, only read about it.]). What is not well understood is the 
complex nature of the radial root system development in all directions 
from the stem/trunk in relation to tree health and structural stability. 
What really provides resistance to toppling/uprooting is the fine-root 
matrix that extends to and beyond the "drip-line" of the tree and whether 
or not meristematic tissue is present to facilitate "recovery" of the 
severed roots, which is limited to fine roots. Anchoring roots tend, in 
many if not most species, to lack such tissue, and their severance kills 
the attached finer roots that actually provide the resistance. Big roots 
lacking the capacity to recover do not, by themselves, provide much 
resistance--root "pruners,"
listen up! Loss of resistance is essentially permanent, and the load 
continues to increase as the tree grows. At the very least, such a 
practice does not increase resistance (root-system "strength").

Here is a link of relevance I recently discovered by one of our (US) best 
arborists. It should be noted that while it may be an absurdly extreme 
case, tree failure potential can be significantly induced by far less.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFqU2kBlxkI

WT

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 4:33 AM Harrison, Sean < 
Sean.Harrison@xxxxxxxxxxx.gov.uk> wrote:

Nice one Wayne;
I shall use that next time an insurance company wants a 200 year old
tree removed because roots are damaging the foundations of a 70 year 
old house.
Sean



-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
<uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson
Sent: 11 January 2020 22:40
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Tree failure potential assessment study WAS Civil
cases for nuisance or damage to property

Warning: email from outside of MVDC - if in any doubt do not open
links or attachments, or carry out requested actions
________________________________


 Mike Charkow,

Somewhat tongue-in-cheek but (contrarily and seriously), I might
suggest that the construction of the fence and slab might have caused
damage and to the root system and compromised its integrity, possibly
compromising the tree's well-being and shortening the tree's life, not
to mention weakening the tree's ability to support itself
constitutionally and physically, as well as the slab depriving the
root system of air and water, thus causing the root system to favor
the part of the soil profile nearest the surface, i.e., the slab as
well as possible or probable damage to the root system by the digging
of fencepost pits, not to mention the installation of underground 
facilities such as foundations, utility facilities, etc.

On the other hand, the planting of a large-growing tree in a location
close to a property line by someone who knew or should have known that
it would encroach upon an adjacent property might also be questioned.
If the tree was natural, both owner and neighbor might be guilty (as
if there were any justice for Nature's voiceless) of  compromising the
tree's rights to the quiet enjoyment of its home and sustenance, as
well as expectations of freedom from injury.

I'll be interested to know (and get links to) any cases and judgments.
Do tree's have standing?

Wayne



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/ This MVDC email is only intended for the
individual or organisation to whom or which it is addressed and may
contain, either in the body of the email or attachment/s, information
that is personal, confidential and/or subject to copyright. If you are
not the intended recipient, please note that copying or distributing
this message, attachment/s or other files associated within this
email, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in
error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete it.



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/




--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/ This MVDC email is only intended for the 
individual or organisation to whom or which it is addressed and may 
contain, either in the body of the email or attachment/s, information 
that is personal, confidential and/or subject to copyright. If you are 
not the intended recipient, please note that copying or distributing this 
message, attachment/s or other files associated within this email, is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please 
notify the sender immediately and then delete it.



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/





--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/





-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/