Who is liable for these fallen trees...

Gautama

I've read a number of posts on this site and others regarding the responsibility/liability for fallen trees. The general consensus is that it's the owner/landowner, which is understandable.

However, what happens in the case where there is a ban on the owner from cutting or felling the tree? I can think of tree (pun intended) cases where this is possible:

1. TPO
2. Felling licence pending
3. Felling licence refusal

In these cases, and possibly more, the owner is prohibited by law from cutting the trees. In some cases it is punishable by imprisonment. If such a tree falls on a road, car, house, etc., who is responsible and who is liable?

ford2600

Section 37 of the Forestry Act, 1946.

Section 37 of the Forestry Act, 1946 states that it is illegal to uproot any tree over ten years old or to cut down any tree, unless notice of the intention to do so has been given in accordance with the Act.

Notice of intention to fell or uproot trees must be given in writing on a form known as a Felling Notice which may be obtained from any Garda Station or directly from the Felling Section of the Forest Service. On receipt of a completed Felling Notice, an Order prohibiting the felling of the trees is issued. This protects the trees in question while consideration is given to the issuing of a felling licence.

The prohibition on the uprooting or cutting down of trees does not apply where:

Arrow it is a hazel, apple, plum, damson, pear or cherry tree grown for the value of its fruit or any osier ( Note - this refers to any one of several willow species especially where grown for their rods for basket-weaving etc.).

Arrow the activity is covered by a limited or general felling licence and during the period during which such authority is exercisable.

Arrow it is less than 100 feet from a dwelling other than a wall or temporary structure;

Arrow it is standing in a County or other Borough or an urban district.

Arrow The tree is standing on land held by the Minister for the purposes of this Act

Arrow Other exceptions apply in the case of road construction, road safety and Such as the case where a tree is uprooted or cut down by direction of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs on the ground that it is a danger or obstruction to telegraph or telephone wires. Another case could be where the tree is certified by a local authority as dangerous to road traffic on account of age/condition or in connection with road widening or improvement schemes or, building or constructional work

Gautama

Thanks for the comprehensive reply.

I posted it for the benefit of my neighbour. She's got a few large trees at the front of her garden, by the roadside.
She was worried about them during the storms last month so had a tree surgeon take a look.
Apparently most of the trees are a potential danger and would only get more dangerous over time.
Also, there appears to be TPOs on them. He quoted her €3,500, thought she's confident of getting it rounded down to €3k.

Based on your reply, her options/possibilities are:

• Get the trees felled, chopped and shredded. She is responsible and liable. No fine/imprisonment as the trees are a road safety risk. This will cost €3,000.
  
• Don't get the trees felled. She is responsible and liable. The trees fall on the road. Either she or the council will get a tree surgeon to chop and shred the trees, no felling. It is reasonable to assume this will cost less than €3,000 (though inflation may increase this cost over time).
• Don't get the trees felled. She is responsible and liable. The trees do not fall on the road. This will cost €0.

I'll let her know.

Thanks.

Oldtree

I would not be confident of a tree surgeons opinion on the retention of trees unless they are a qualified arborist, on the other hand anyone can say remove a tree and charge for it. What kind of examinations were carried out?

If an arborist has an opinion that the tree is dangerous and needs to be removed as it is creating a immediate hazard to the public then it may be removed (see exceptions). If an arborist says the trees can be retained then they have suitable insurance for saying so.

If there is a TPO it would be wise to work with your council on this and you would need an arborists opinion on removal. I would doubt that anyone on the council has the necessary credentials to make an informed judgement on the removal/retention of a tree. It may be that the council would not accept a tree surgeons opinion to remove a tree and need an arborists opinion.

These can tell you your local arborist:
http://www.goodwin-arborist.com/

sandydan

sorry for butting in as i know little of regs, however a tree fell on a van which was shown in paper and tv coverage,during storm and an interesting scenario is in process, on Rte Joe Duffy programme driver/owner was interviewed, suffered serious injuries from which he will need a lot of recovery time and for which it appears he will get no compensation,as it was termed as an Act of God and no one is liable as result, I think his van is covered by his own insurance but im open to correction.Just thought it would be of interest.

Oldtree

sandydan wrote: »

sorry for butting in as i know little of regs, however a tree fell on a van which was shown in paper and tv coverage,during storm and an interesting scenario is in process, on Rte Joe Duffy programme driver/owner was interviewed, suffered serious injuries from which he will need a lot of recovery time and for which it appears he will get no compensation,as it was termed as an Act of God and no one is liable as result, I think his van is covered by his own insurance but im open to correction.Just thought it would be of interest.

Not butting in at all, that is very interesting.

A lot of irish law and decisions are based on English common law.

If the tree was sound (and possibly the owner had the trees surveyed) then that may well be the case, but if the tree was unsound and un-surveyed then there is a case for negligence (reckless disregard) on the part of the tree owner as it was an avoidable accident. ie there is a duty of care for one's neighbour, a standard of care (which may differ from site to site) you have to take care as a reasonable and prudent landowner. but each case is decided on its own merits.

Lynch v Hetherton 1991
the onus of proof wil be discharged if the plaintiff can show that a proper inspection of the tree at reasonable intervals would have forewarned........
Prove that the landowner was aware or should have been aware of the danger......

worth reading as it has loads in it that is too much for me to type:
Trees, forests and the law in Ireland (2005) Coford Chapter 7
http://www.coford.ie/publications/books/

ford2600

Oldtree wrote: »

Not butting in at all, that is very interesting.

A lot of irish law and decisions are based on English common law.

If the tree was sound (and possibly the owner had the trees surveyed) then that may well be the case, but if the tree was unsound and un-surveyed then there is a case for negligence (reckless disregard) on the part of the tree owner as it was an avoidable accident. ie there is a duty of care for one's neighbour, a standard of care (which may differ from site to site) you have to take care as a reasonable and prudent landowner. but each case is decided on its own merits.

Lynch v Hetherton 1991
the onus of proof wil be discharged if the plaintiff can show that a proper inspection of the tree at reasonable intervals would have forewarned........
Prove that the landowner was aware or should have been aware of the danger......

worth reading as it has loads in it that is too much for me to type:
Trees, forests and the law in Ireland (2005) Coford Chapter 7
http://www.coford.ie/publications/books/

My understanding, having read a book entilted Trees and the Law, was a landowner wasn't liable if the tree that caused damaged had disease or defects that weren't obvious to a layman.

Requiring an inspection by an expert of every tree that could cause damage sounds mental.

More reading here

http://www.flac.uk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Liability-for-death-or-injury-from-falling-trees-and-branches.pdf

Oldtree

ford2600 wrote: »

My understanding, having read a book entilted Trees and the Law, was a landowner wasn't liable if the tree that caused damaged had disease or defects that weren't obvious to a layman.

Requiring an inspection by an expert of every tree that could cause damage sounds mental.

More reading here

http://www.flac.uk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Liability-for-death-or-injury-from-falling-trees-and-branches.pdf

That is another very interesting read, thank you. I don't think it is about inspecting every tree in the landscape, only those where there is a potential hazard, such as roadside trees.

From the conclusions:

From this review, it is concluded that only in cases where trees are remote from public access is an absence of some form of safety inspection likely to be defensible, should an accident occur. In all other circumstances, the law appears likely to require that occupiers be aware of the condition of their trees and manage them accordingly.

Of particular note is that the courts appear to consider regular ad hoc inspection by untrained persons acceptable in some circumstances, providing that the people concerned have a good working knowledge of trees generally and also are familiar with the trees in question. Where there is significant public access, formal tree inspection by trained specialists appears to be warranted, as is generally considered to be the case by the arboricultural profession.

...common law provides reassurance that the law tolerates an acceptable level of risk pertaining to trees, providing, in most cases, that this is kept under review by some form of inspection.

I would interpret that to mean that roadside trees require specialist knowledge, but either way I would not like to leave myself open the whims of litigation and the courts deciding if an owner was competent to do an assessment of roadside trees or not should an accident occur.

ford2600

Oldtree wrote: »

That is another very interesting read, thank you. I don't think it is about inspecting every tree in the landscape, only those where there is a potential hazard, such as roadside trees.

From the conclusions:

From this review, it is concluded that only in cases where trees are remote from public access is an absence of some form of safety inspection likely to be defensible, should an accident occur. In all other circumstances, the law appears likely to require that occupiers be aware of the condition of their trees and manage them accordingly.

Of particular note is that the courts appear to consider regular ad hoc inspection by untrained persons acceptable in some circumstances, providing that the people concerned have a good working knowledge of trees generally and also are familiar with the trees in question. Where there is significant public access, formal tree inspection by trained specialists appears to be warranted, as is generally considered to be the case by the arboricultural profession.

...common law provides reassurance that the law tolerates an acceptable level of risk pertaining to trees, providing, in most cases, that this is kept under review by some form of inspection.

I would interpret that to mean that roadside trees require specialist knowledge, but either way I would not like to leave myself open the whims of litigation and the courts deciding if an owner was competent to do an assessment of roadside trees or not should an accident occur.

I have over a mile of road frontage so I don't take responsiblity lightly.

I knock if there is any suggestion or hint of danger.

Should have added I read book in 1998, lot of decisions since

Oldtree

ford2600 wrote: »

I have over a mile of road frontage so I don't take responsiblity lightly.

I knock if there is any suggestion or hint of danger.

Should have added I read book in 1998, lot of decisions since

I am delighted to hear it, so do I.

The other side of that is you would need a felling licence to knock a tree, unless you could take photos of a huge cavity to prove that it was dangerous or had a professional opinion that it was dangerous and needed immediate felling, otherwise you could face a fine, court costs, etc.. So a hint or suggestion of danger is a variable that could not be relied on in this situation, actual proof would be required.

There is a body language to trees that can be read by an arborist, that can also indicate problems.

The book you read should have given an indication of the level of owner responsibility and that hasn't change much over the intervening years.

The Coford book really is a must read for tree owners.

Oldtree

Good books for the tree owner to start with:

Principles of Tree Hazard Assessment
http://www.treesource.co.uk/acatalog/info_226.html

Diagnosis of Ill Health in Trees
http://www.treesource.co.uk/acatalog/info_104.html

sandydan

my head is spinning, good for me that I don't have big trees near to road, i'm one of those who believe roadsides should be tree free for a distance of fifty feet back from roadside, not referring to bush or hedging,with none of above at bends , crossroads or entrances. as well as banning solid frame objects (poles etc,) unprotected by a crash barrier,i owe my life to one i guess

My Potatoes

sandydan wrote: »

my head is spinning....

When did life get so complicated, eh?

Oldtree

My Potatoes wrote: »

When did life get so complicated, eh?

It is complicated, and even then you cannot be assured of a positive outcome in the courts. Ireland is a very litigious country and ignorance of the law is not accepted as an excuse.

A simple rule is if you have roadside trees or trees that have any traffic (car/foot) look at them regularly and learn about them, notice the differences between visits. A rule of thumb would to get them professionally assessed every 3 years and that would cover you should something happen.

Oldtree

sandydan wrote: »

my head is spinning, good for me that I don't have big trees near to road, i'm one of those who believe roadsides should be tree free for a distance of fifty feet back from roadside, not referring to bush or hedging,with none of above at bends , crossroads or entrances. as well as banning solid frame objects (poles etc,) unprotected by a crash barrier,i owe my life to one i guess

A 3 yearly assessment would potentially negate any liability for the owner for existing trees. We would be too safe with a scorched earth policy.

I would agree with you that planting trees in a situation where they can become a hazard in the future is not a good idea, The right tree for the right place just about covers it. A little bit of thinking before planting is what is called for.

zetecescort

Oldtree wrote: »

It is complicated, and even then you cannot be assured of a positive outcome in the courts. Ireland is a very litigious country and ignorance of the law is not accepted as an excuse.

A simple rule is if you have roadside trees or trees that have any traffic (car/foot) look at them regularly and learn about them, notice the differences between visits. A rule of thumb would to get them professionally assessed every 3 years and that would cover you should something happen.

Would an arborist give a written report and would it be worth anything in court

Oldtree

zetecescort wrote: »

Would an arborist give a written report and would it be worth anything in court

Only an arborist would be suitably qualified and insured to give a written assessment that would have any value in a court.

These guys can point you in the right direction of your local arborist (needless to say they are not me:D)
http://www.goodwin-arborist.com/

Moocifer

If theres a TPO on the trees the local authority that put it on is responsible for them. Here's a link to the section of it that states that http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1946/en/act/pub/0013/sec0044.html#sec44.

Only the local authority that imposed the TPO can give permission for anything to be done with them. A TPO supersedes the 100 feet of a permanent building rule in the act.

Also if a tree is a danger to road traffic under the 1993 Roads Act gives the Local Authority the right to remove the offending trees or order the person who's property they stand on to remove them.

sandydan

My Potatoes wrote: »

When did life get so complicated, eh?

The day your mama said go to school and learn some thing ,:) long may it continue:D

Oldtree

Moocifer wrote: »

If theres a TPO on the trees the local authority that put it on is responsible for them. Here's a link to the section of it that states that http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1946/en/act/pub/0013/sec0044.html#sec44..

I am not sure that is what that section means. It seems to be about if a felling licence is applied for, is refused and they take decide to take over ownership of the tree and the site of said tree to preserve the amenity of the tree. Thus as owners they would be liable for the tree. They mention a protected tree in a different way to a TPO.

When you apply for a felling licence the trees are automatically protected until the licence Is granted.

Moocifer wrote: »

Only the local authority that imposed the TPO can give permission for anything to be done with them. .

That is true up to a point. The council do not own the trees with a TPO on them. A TPO is no longer valid if a tree dies, is dying or becomes dangerous and The TPO should be revoked, but this could take some time as an application is needed along with a professional arborists opinion. But if you as a tree owner (TPO in this case) and you get your trees assessed by an arborist and the arborist says that this tree is in imminent danger of collapse (say) onto a local road then the works are urgent and need to be expedited. A courtesy phone call to your council tree person to inform the council of the imminent danger to the public as assessed by an arborist should be adequate to allow works to commence.

Moocifer wrote: »

IfAlso if a tree is a danger to road traffic under the 1993 Roads Act gives the Local Authority the right to remove the offending trees or order the person who's property they stand on to remove them.

You should have sorted out those dangerous trees before the local authority becomes involved, as a prudent tree owner

Tree council advice:
http://www.treecouncil.ie/initiatives/treeinformation/treesandlaw.html

Oldtree

sandydan wrote: »

The day your mama said go to school and learn some thing ,:) long may it continue:D

I'm not finished yet

TomOnBoard

If you own land, its very simple: You own everything that

a) grows on it
b) flows from it
c) is endangered by it.

Basically, when it comes to trees, if you own it- you own ANY downstream problems that emanate from it.

THEREFORE, If you have ever had a missive from

i) the county council;
ii) neighbours;
iii) state agencies;
iv) professional advisors;
v) your own judgement

that says you have a dangerous tree on your property:

I'd arrange to have it professionally removed, UNLESS your own assessment, based on GOOD SCIENCE is that the tree should stay.. Simples. But don;t forget the need for the Felling Licence..

My Potatoes

TomOnBoard wrote: »

But don;t forget the need for the Felling Licence..

What happens if the felling licence is refused?

sandydan

Oldtree wrote: »

I am not sure that is what that section means. It seems to be about if a felling licence is applied for, is refused and they take decide to take over ownership of the tree and the site of said tree to preserve the amenity of the tree. Thus as owners they would be liable for the tree. They mention a protected tree in a different way to a TPO.

When you apply for a felling licence the trees are automatically protected until the licence Is granted.



That is true up to a point. The council do not own the trees with a TPO on them. A TPO is no longer valid if a tree dies, is dying or becomes dangerous and The TPO should be revoked, but this could take some time as an application is needed along with a professional arborists opinion. But if you as a tree owner (TPO in this case) and you get your trees assessed by an arborist and the arborist says that this tree is in imminent danger of collapse (say) onto a local road then the works are urgent and need to be expedited. A courtesy phone call to your council tree person to inform the council of the imminent danger to the public as assessed by an arborist should be adequate to allow works to commence.
A courtesy call is useless to any official in any state dept , a letter goes on record

Oldtree

sandydan wrote: »

A courtesy call is useless to any official in any state dept , a letter goes on record

Good point, but contacting the council is a courtesy only. Once a TPO tree is adjudged to be an imminent danger to the public by an arborist then it comes down asap, council permission or no. The council cannot take the issue any further, it is unlikely that they have an arborist on staff. it would be usual to have an arborist in house on a UK council. our law is based is on common sense (mostly)

sandydan

i like the way you insert the in the appropriate place good as any Oxford dictionary me thinks for giving the correct emphasis , id still send them a note especially in current environment. I did a haz -chem course and Rule No 1 was and is CYAAT ( cover your ass at all times), same rule for State Depts :

Oldtree

sandydan wrote: »

i like the way you insert the in the appropriate place good as any Oxford dictionary me thinks for giving the correct emphasis , id still send them a note especially in current environment. I did a haz -chem course and Rule No 1 was and is CYAAT ) cover your ass at all times), same rule for State Depts :

Absolutly CYAAT, but the tree would be down before they get the letter anyway and they would have to employ an arborist to get a second opinion as there would be no one suitably qualified on staff Cant see it happening really.

My Potatoes

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/farmer-in-hot-water-for-obeying-felling-order-259860.html

Oldtree

My Potatoes wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/farmer-in-hot-water-for-obeying-felling-order-259860.html

4 questions spring to mind immediately:

1. Were the trees an immediate danger to the public?
2. Was there time to apply for the necessary felling licence?
3. Did the council's removal letter indicated the need for a felling licence or the need for an assessment by an arborist.
4. Are the Cork County Council engineers qualified arborists.

If the Forestry department say no to 1 and yes to 2 then the farmer will be prosecuted.

If the answer to no 3 is no, then if the farmer is taken to court the council could also be held jointly liable.

If the answer to no 4 is no then they should have indicated in their letter the need for an assessment by an arborist and the need for a felling licence.

The farmer wouldn't have had an issue if an arborist had assessed the trees and indicated their immediate removal on public safety grounds.

Contacting the Department by phone (and letter ) to inform them prior to works would be appropriate and a forestry inspector could be on site very quickly if required. The department is not unreasonable and understands the need for public safety. If the situation arose that the Department prevented felling of assessed dangerous trees then the liability would rest with them should an accident occur and that is again something they would be unlikely to undertake.

It would be appropriate for councils to employ a full time arborist to manage the tree population.

http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/contact/

My Potatoes

Oldtree wrote: »

It would be appropriate for councils to employ a full time arborist to manage the tree population.

34 full-time arborists nationwide? If the Irish Water teething problems have taught us anything, there are far more specialists being employed by the councils than are required on a national level.

Oldtree

My Potatoes wrote: »

34 full-time arborists nationwide? If the Irish Water teething problems have taught us anything, there are far more specialists being employed by the councils than are required on a national level.

Currently there are no arborists (no specialists) that I know of on any council here. A general cert in horticulture does not qualify a person to comment on the safety of a road side tree. Where do you suggest we start to manage the safety of our trees?
I am not sure how you can link the water issue with the tree issue, and feel that comparison is barking up the wrong tree .

Oldtree

ironically I have just come across this:

http://www.corkcoco.ie/co/web/Cork%20County%20Council/Severe%20Weather/Roads%20-%20Severe%20Weather%20Information/Safety%20Tips%20for%20your%20Trees

SAFETY TIPS for your Trees (Cork County Council)

If you have mature trees either at the road side or in the garden, it is advisable to have them regularly inspected by a qualified, experienced arborist – tree surgeon. Under the terms of the Roads Act, 1993,

Not sure they make the difference between a tree surgeon and an arborist clear, but it begs the question what is the content of their removal letter to the farmer above.

sandydan

The Irish Examiner article illustrated my point of CYAAT again,one dept doesn't know where their powers start and end or overlap for that matter and in my opinion are waiting and willing to show off their "authoriity" at every given opportunity to penalize farmer and others alike.If the newspaper was not involved would that prosecution have gone ahead?
in my opinion there should be one final destruction cert issued by council or rsa,taking precedence over felling permits ,with gardai issuing notification to councils in any relevant road safety related issues. i believe that in some areas in england police did have a role in notifying council engineers of dangerous issues - potholes etc, with responsibility resting on engineer to resolve issues asap in compliance. I note from article above that ditches ( i presume earthen walls or stone walls) are added to removal requirements where does planning and H&S requirement collide here,and which wins

Moocifer

I notice from that article that the council gave him a notice to remove 20 and he took down 50. He says the he had the agreement of the council to remove over 50 but unless it's in writing it would never hold up.

Oldtree

sandydan wrote: »

in my opinion there should be one final destruction cert issued by council or rsa,taking precedence over felling permits ,with gardai issuing notification to councils in any relevant road safety related issues. i believe that in some areas in england police did have a role in notifying council engineers of dangerous issues - potholes etc, with responsibility resting on engineer to resolve issues asap in compliance.

As long as the destruction cert had the opinion of an arborist attached otherwise back to square 1 again. The councils in England have an arborist on staff to give an opinion.

Oldtree

Moocifer wrote: »

I notice from that article that the council gave him a notice to remove 20 and he took down 50. He says the he had the agreement of the council to remove over 50 but unless it's in writing it would never hold up.

He is really in deep dodo, the council notice is not an authority to fell in the first instance so 20 or 50 dosn't matter really.

Oldtree

sandydan wrote: »

If the newspaper was not involved would that prosecution have gone ahead?

yes

From the Western People:
Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Error led to felling of 520 trees

A CONG man who illegal felled 520 trees near his home in South Mayo will have to report to the local District Court for a period of ten years.

Fergal O’Mahony, Old School, Cong, appeared at Ballinrobe District Court on charges under the Forestry Act. The court heard O’Mahony uprooted and cut down 520 trees, without a felling licence, at a site at Nymphsfield, Cong. The trees, which were at least 10 years old, were a mixture of ash, scotts pine, super spruce, oak and beech. Before cutting down the trees, O’Mahony had not served notice on the Gardaí and had later claimed the trees were on a site owned by him, where he intended to seek planning permission to build a new family home.

The court heard O’Mahony had not been aware he was committing an offence by felling the trees, as he had checked to see if the site was deemed an area of conservation and learned that it was not. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charges before the court.

Mr Seamus Hughes, State Solicitor, said the penalty in such a case was a fine of €63 per tree. However, the Department of Agriculture was currently in negotiations with Mr O’Mahony, who had expressed his sincere apologies, explaining that he really had no idea he was doing anything wrong.

The defendant had offered to re-plant a section of the site, as well as offering another portion of land to replant some more trees, to make up for the loss. Mr Hughes noted that the Department is interested in the landowner’s proposal, but pointed out that, legally, the Minister must obtain a conviction before issuing the re-planting order. Nevertheless, the solicitor commented that the Minister had indicated that he would like to see O’Mahony go ahead with the proposed planting.

Mr Creed, solicitor, stressed his client had not acted out of malevolence and had actually contacted Dúchas to make sure the site was not located in a special area of conservation. The defendant hired a contractor to remove trees and when the matter was brought to Mr O’Mahony’s attention he immediately put his hands up.

The solicitor said his client had entered into immediate discussions with the Department of Agriculture. Mr O’Mahony valued his good name, was involved in many community organisations and was embarrassed by what had occurred. Mr Creed said his client ran a thriving business which involved travel to the United States. A conviction against him might prevent him from travelling to the US in the future and he implored Judge Devins not to impose a conviction.

“My client is in open correspondence with the Department and has hired a horticulturist and a tree expert to re-plant the trees. This is a case of human error. He did not wilfully set out to break the law and he is prepared to pay any costs to the State. In the circumstances, I would ask the court to please consider some method of dealing with this case without imposing a conviction,” said Mr Creed.

Judge Mary Devins said she accepted the evidence given by the defence but the Department of Agriculture would need reassurance that if the trees were replanted they would not be cut down some time later.

In this regard, Judge Devins suggested that the matter be adjourned for a lengthy period and brought back before the court on an annual basis. She ordered that Mr O’Mahony contribute to the State’s legal costs and said that she would reassess the case on a year-to-year basis so that negotiations could be entered into and that the re-planting could be carried out. Concluding, she adjourned the case to December 2, 2008, for mention

sandydan

Oldtree wrote: »

As long as the destruction cert had the opinion of an arborist attached otherwise back to square 1 again.

not necessarily a final destruction cert could / should be issued on variety of grounds and that would/could include different experts or bodies rsa, gardai councils,with H&S being a final factor regardless,with road clearing done properly.I take your point about the English councils staffing experts.The same should apply to road repair(potholes). some road clearing ive seen are a bigger Health & Safety risk than leaving the road blocked ie, trunks of tree cocking out over ditches in such a way that a car or truck blinded by oncoming headlights could easily hit them,

Oldtree

sandydan wrote: »

not necessarily a final destruction cert could / should be issued on variety of grounds and that would/could include different experts or bodies rsa, gardai councils,with H&S being a final factor regardless,with road clearing done properly.I take your point about the English councils staffing experts.The same should apply to road repair(potholes). some road clearing ive seen are a bigger Health & Safety risk than leaving the road blocked ie, trunks of tree cocking out over ditches in such a way that a car or truck blinded by oncoming headlights could easily hit them,

Only an arborist is competent and qualified to comment on the safety or not of a tree, so while other bodies may have an opinion or be able to point to a potential hazard they would have to forward their recommendations on to an arborist for the final say and assessment before any action is taken.

Who would you prefer to service your car a doctor or a mechanic?

Gautama

There have been 40 posts to this thread. 19 are by Oldtree and he/she has mentioned "arborist" over 30 times.
Tonight, Matthew, I'm going to be an...ARBORIST!:D

sandydan

Oldtree wrote: »

Only an arborist is competent and qualified to comment on the safety or not of a tree, so while other bodies may have an opinion or be able to point to a potential hazard they would have to forward their recommendations on to an arborist for the final say and assessment before any action is taken.

Who would you prefer to service your car a doctor or a mechanic?

I know what you are pointing out under current legislation.I refer specifically to trees blown or a potential source of danger leaning across roads and property after storms

I should have pointed out more clearly that reforming current legislation, is what I mean,where H & Safety on roads etc, take priority after storms,or other events like subsidence cause by floods, landslides or accidental contact with machinery,etc. where anyone requiring a second opinion should be sent to an eye specialist,psychiatrist or god knows where, when trees have fallen or leaning on cars ,houses electricity lines and other property privately or public owned and trees causing a "Health and Safety Hazard" fall into a well defined accepted legal term, which requires a destruction cert which can be issued ,accompanied by photographic evidence before and after if necessary verified by Garda ,RSA, Co Council officer. One doesn't need a mechanic or aborist to free him from vehicle if it's buckled beyond repair and he is trapped inside after a tree falls on it like the poor chap that rang Joe Duffy on rte 1 programme I wish him well.

Oldtree

sandydan wrote: »

I know what you are pointing out under current legislation.I refer specifically to trees blown or a potential source of danger leaning across roads and property after storms

I should have pointed out more clearly that reforming current legislation, is what I mean,where H & Safety on roads etc, take priority after storms,or other events like subsidence cause by floods, landslides or accidental contact with machinery,etc. where anyone requiring a second opinion should be sent to an eye specialist,psychiatrist or god knows where, when trees have fallen or leaning on cars ,houses electricity lines and other property privately or public owned and trees causing a "Health and Safety Hazard" fall into a well defined accepted legal term, which requires a destruction cert which can be issued ,accompanied by photographic evidence before and after if necessary verified by Garda ,RSA, Co Council officer. One doesn't need a mechanic or aborist to free him from vehicle if it's buckled beyond repair and he is trapped inside after a tree falls on it like the poor chap that rang Joe Duffy on rte 1 programme I wish him well.

If a tree is windblown or no longer upright after a storm then it obviously an immediate danger to the public and could be removed immediately by the owner, using appropriate methods and also informing the garda if the road needs closing, etc., take some photos first would be adequate and inform your local forestry inspector. It would be unreasonable to retain such an obviously dangerous tree for any reason.

Oldtree

Gautama wrote: »

There have been 40 posts to this thread. 19 are by Oldtree and he/she has mentioned "arborist" over 30 times.
Tonight, Matthew, I'm going to be an...ARBORIST!:D

I didn't realise anybody was taking any notice of my posts, but to count the words requires a dedication I have to admire.

This week I have been mostly eating Arborists

sandydan

Oldtree wrote: »

If a tree is windblown or no longer upright after a storm then it obviously an immediate danger to the public and could be removed immediately by the owner, using appropriate methods and also informing the garda if the road needs closing, etc., take some photos first would be adequate and inform your local forestry inspector. It would be unreasonable to retain such an obviously dangerous tree for any reason.

I assume something like that was done by the farmer on Drimoleague/Dunmanway road, in conjunction with Cork Co Council who decided it was necessary to remove trees, so that is where the gap between the Dept of Agriculture or others became problematic.If a newspaper wan't involved a prosecution would/could have taken place under existing regulations . a clear cut definition needs to be established to prevent such a farcical situation reoccurring,probably under H & S regulations to include all other hazards (potholes for example)which need to rectified immediately by order of a Garda, RSA, or designated authority. This is my final comment on this issue as i feel more contributions is like rehashing what is already written.:)

Oldtree

sandydan wrote: »

I assume something like that was done by the farmer on Drimoleague/Dunmanway road, in conjunction with Cork Co Council who decided it was necessary to remove trees, so that is where the gap between the Dept of Agriculture or others became problematic.If a newspaper wan't involved a prosecution would/could have taken place under existing regulations . a clear cut definition needs to be established to prevent such a farcical situation reoccurring,probably under H & S regulations to include all other hazards (potholes for example)which need to rectified immediately by order of a Garda, RSA, or designated authority. This is my final comment on this issue as i feel more contributions is like rehashing what is already written.:)

I think u assume the trees were an obvious danger, I assume by the departments reaction that they weren't an immediate hazard or an obvious danger. If you read the article then you will note one tree fell on the road and was cleared then the council helped the farmer fell the remaining trees. There is no indication of an arborists(:D) assessment on the remaining trees.

It is farcical where a tree owner dosn't know the existing tree laws and the responsibility that goes with tree ownership and the need for a felling licence to fell trees unless an arborist (:D) has adjudged the trees to be an immediate danger, esp adjacent to the public roadway. The need for assessment is clearly stated on the Cork Council website, despite them not following their own advice in this case. There is no gap and ignorance of the law is not accepted as an excuse in law and rightfully the farmer and the council (for knowingly aiding the farmer) should be prosecuted, as others have been (see above 2007 case I cited for ignorance off the law). I would be surprised if a case does not ensue.

ford2600

If I was in any doubt about a tree on side of road, I would drop it no questions asked.
Leave the tree stand while waiting for Forest Service to give me a felling licence or wait through a storm for an aborist to call and they pay him to tell me it would be prudent to knock it anyway? I know what I would do.

Give me court prosecutions any day over making a widow or orphans.

This happened in period with very violent storms. Council erred on side of caution perhaps, but if they had not and a tree caused damage/loss of life, guess who would be footing the bill.

Oldtree

ford2600 wrote: »

If I was in any doubt about a tree on side of road, I would drop it no questions asked.
Leave the tree stand while waiting for Forest Service to give me a felling licence or wait through a storm for an aborist to call and they pay him to tell me it would be prudent to knock it anyway? I know what I would do.

Give me court prosecutions any day over making a widow or orphans.

This happened in period with very violent storms. Council erred on side of caution perhaps, but if they had not and a tree caused damage/loss of life, guess who would be footing the bill.

If you have some experience to be able to "doubt" a tree then I have no problem with that, or if that doubt is obvious, that isn't the point here. It is about protecting yourself too, so at the very least document what you are doing ie photos. You would be putting your life at risk to fell a doubtful tree in a storm, perhaps better to get the garda to close the road if you are in doubt until after the storm.

The point is 50 trees were felled without a proper assessment and "fear of" is not a proper assessment. Were all the trees an immediate hazard to the public, the forest service seemed to think not. The farmers journal published information on tree law as has Teagasc.

ford2600

I wasn't clear. I would drop tree after waiting for storm to abate.

For example Stephen's night a friend had one of his very large ash trees near entrance fall onto public road. About 6 similar trees remained. When cutting up fallen tree, it was obvious it was diseased in some way. From my untrained inspection of remaining trees at least one and perhaps two was in difficulty(large dead upper branches).
I advised him to get tree surgeon to drop trees( they were way beyond my ability given size and in particular location and unkown condition of trees) or get an aborist to advise him whether they ok to leave or not.(i.e. cover himself)
Contacting FS in middle of holidays and waiting for answer on Felling licence never entered my head.
In any event he did nothing. One of remaining trees came down onto road. He got lucky, no one injured.

Oldtree

ford2600 wrote: »

I wasn't clear. I would drop tree after waiting for storm to abate.

For example Stephen's night a friend had one of his very large ash trees near entrance fall onto public road. About 6 similar trees remained. When cutting up fallen tree, it was obvious it was diseased in some way. From my untrained inspection of remaining trees at least one and perhaps two was in difficulty(large dead upper branches).
I advised him to get tree surgeon to drop trees( they were way beyond my ability given size and in particular location and unkown condition of trees) or get an aborist to advise him whether they ok to leave or not.(i.e. cover himself)
Contacting FS in middle of holidays and waiting for answer on Felling licence never entered my head.
In any event he did nothing. One of remaining trees came down onto road. He got lucky, no one injured.

You did your best there good for you, your friend took a risk knowingly (negligence), he was very lucky as were the public. That would (your advice) seem reasonable to me. the large dead branches should have been taken off at the very least to protect the public. I would have taken a picture of the fallen tree too to protect myself.

It would be difficult to contact the department during holidays, so I would have called the garda and had the road closed until the tree situation was sorted, that would speed things along as I'm sure the garda have your local forestry inspectors phone number.