Who is liable for these fallen trees...

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.