Interesting tree failure - Ku-ring-gai Council - Is VTA enough?

Eric Frei

Is VTA these days enough?

Doggone lucky escape from tree - Local News - News - North Shore Times

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________

derwoodii

An observation. How many tree permits are issued for NQR trees then I see them standing 2 - 3 years later. HO sit on the permits even let them expire after effort cost n claims that the trees wrong so must go. They leave em.

In this case its appears he has left the wrong tree while not jumpin hoops submitting required Arb repo for others I,m guessing he just gave up as TPo permits applications are all too hard. You know my dream on all this permit mumbo jumbo that its maybe better that Councils allow the qualified blokes in the job make the call and just manage them and not all the resident and all their trees. sigh.

A hypothetical now is would the Arborist have picked up any root defect?

Anyhoo walking your dog while healthy past time will find exposure to risk averages higher than any unlikely tree on ya head.

Eric Frei

That's whole point of this thread. We do not know what the canopy was like to determine decayed roots, for all we know the tree was 50% foliated and stag headed ... indicators of root problems.

We do know that the guy wanted to remove the tree and had to substantiate it, but failed to. That substantiation was via a report.

Now if an arborist wrote it was OK then 3 years later it failed that's a whole new debate. His methodology of why it's OK could be tested, but proving his ducks are in order all would be fine.

Who makes the call? .... The owner or authorised body, the report or inspection is just that and not a mandate to proceed.

__________________

Brent Ferris

It is reasonable that the arborist thought this particular tree was ok, so no report was written. The city arborist is supposed to follow up, no? And then he/she did not see anything wrong or to be worried about. The council's statement that no arborist report was filed for that tree is just a poor attempt to cover themselves --pity that. Suggests it happens often enough they wouldn't want to set a precedent and have really competent people working for them.

Congrats to the dog who prob sensed or heard the tree was failing!

Eric Frei

Yes, I often do that too when consulting, if the client is adamant that they want the tree gone but there is insufficient evidence to support that I tell them so and seldom is pen put to paper. Good point you picked up on.

I see no reason why it's the councils responsibility to follow up on submissions, why should they be responsible for the clients failings? They requested a report, it was not forthcoming .... seems pretty clear to me the home-owners responsibility. The council then made no decision to keep or remove, however as the default situation is no removal unless substantiated the tree stayed.

In many districts it's not the councils responsibility to assess trees either unless they want a 2nd opinion, they may have a look themselves if they want to but are not compelled to, some engage a private consultant for another opinion and pay them. But the trigger is a tree report, they need it.

If you look at what is happening right now with the Chinderah Tavern fig tree you can see the council wants the taverns tree report and has commissioned their own at their expense to make judgement on the tree and treatment vs removal .... and the tree is not even protected but consider it so due to the public outcry and intervention.

Imagine if all it took was lodgement of an application for tree removal to have council inspect your trees for free .... there would be a deluge of tree assessments in many cases to satisfy arbor-phobic mindsets. The old days on the Gold Coast was like this when the council would assess the trees, I believe it's changed a little now with a $45 fee to accompany the application.

__________________

Brent Ferris

In Toronto, it is a $100 permit fee (as a MO or certified cheque -- that's 110), the arborist writes the report, submits it to the appropriate section, they send their arborist out to see if they agree with the initial assessment, add on whatever requirements they would like to see (if permission is granted) and give you a form to fill out taking responsibility for removal of the tree and the replanting of one or more replacement native tree(s). This process normally takes 8 to 12 weeks. If they disagree, they send back the money after about 9-12 months. The permit is good for 3 months, and after that you get to reapply if you are a bit tardy about getting the work done. The homeowner is to notify them when a replacement tree has been planted, so they can inspect the tree for species, size and location.

In Toronto, trees 30cm and larger dbh require permits unless they are dead or lol hazardous. Their definition of hazardous is the tree is already starting to fall or will before you leave the site. So if it is still alive and only almost hazardous, an arborist report etc is required.
Multi-stemmed trees, the largest stem only, is measured.
In some of the neighbouring areas, 20cm dbh is the limit, and in multi-stemmed trees, all diameters are added for the total. Don't do much work in those areas.

So there used to be a lot of requests for removals; things slowed down some when they changed the rules from $100 per report to $100 per tree and took 8-12 weeks to make a decision. A lot of building projects were held up, and a lot of people found ways to work around the trees -- or take them down real quick.

I have generally found that the city arborist that comes out -- is supposed to be qualified -- and may well be so -- but is so disgruntled with politics that a quick look is all the tree gets, and unless it is really bad - paperwork gets delayed.

For the council to say they asked for a report and none came, I would have thought that the request would be enough to send someone out for a look see -- even if that meant a charge would apply. If it is a privately owned tree, and the owner wants it removed, and the council says no report, no removal -- doesn't liability then fall on the council for making sure the owner is acting rationally -- since the homeowner could not possibly know about tree health? If the tree was healthy, and the homeowner had had the tree maintained, then he would not be negligent, and insurance should pay the bill -- assuming of course he had insurance.

Eric Frei

My writing in green.

__________________

Brent Ferris

That's a pretty neat line - wonder how universal that is.

Is that negligence on the part of the homeowner, having a report being requested? the arborist that submits the report, but is slow to submit? the council that receives the report, and is slow to act?

Eric Frei

Go waste a lawyers time, I have run out for this subject.

__________________

Jeff Darby

In my opinion the duty of care lies on the home owner as it is his tree on his property, once you are aware of a problem you have a duty of care to sort it out.

__________________

Member: Australian Tree Association

Join the Australian Tree Association...Have your voice heard !

Arboriculture, A life long study for some, a passing phase for others

© Jeffrey J Darby 2011

Brent Ferris

But it sounds like he wasn't aware of a problem, it sounds like the arborist didn't make a note about the tree, and the homeowner wanted the tree removed because he thought it was a threat if it fell.

I am sorry Eric, you're prob right - the homeowner should have followed up more.

the big tree nut

i ve seen a news thing about a walker and dog, and the dog suddenly stop and started to bark and a few seconds later a tree came crashing down 10 metres in front of her, so another dog has saved someone from a tree