Jump to content

Log in or register to remove this advert

Beech reduction..


PC tree
 Share

Recommended Posts

Log in or register to remove this advert

ARB Approved :biggrin:

 

Whilst it certainly is to a very good standard, no argument, and involving a species that lends itself to nice reductions, why is it that the height is often reduced more than the spread, or at least appears to be?

 

Coz it's easier, coz the clients wants it, coz that's the right thing to do?

 

I see this quite often and have never really understood why. :confused1:

 

Thoughts?

 

Cheers..

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ARB Approved :biggrin:

 

 

 

Whilst it certainly is to a very good standard, no argument, and involving a species that lends itself to nice reductions, why is it that the height is often reduced more than the spread, or at least appears to be?

 

 

 

Coz it's easier, coz the clients wants it, coz that's the right thing to do?

 

 

 

I see this quite often and have never really understood why. :confused1:

 

 

 

Thoughts?

 

 

 

Cheers..

 

Paul

 

 

 

Hi Paul,

 

In my experience and unless the spec says to reduce the top more, then surely it just appears to be, if I'm asked to do an overall reduction of say 2m then the overall finished product should be 2m all round and no more from the top than the sides. But some specs I've often come across species dependent have a metre or so more from the top on the spec. ie 2m top, 1/1.5m sides?? I can only assume these reasons are for someone's personnel preference or something..

 

Again species dependent I also feel the sides offer more in substantial growth points and a little more is needed from the top to achieve an all round symmetrical finish!!

 

Adam :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Paul,

 

In my experience and unless the spec says to reduce the top more, then surely it just appears to be, if I'm asked to do an overall reduction of say 2m then the overall finished product should be 2m all round and no more from the top than the sides. But some specs I've often come across species dependent have a metre or so more from the top on the spec. ie 2m top, 1/1.5m sides?? I can only assume these reasons are for someone's personnel preference or something..

 

Again species dependent I also feel the sides offer more in substantial growth points and a little more is needed from the top to achieve an all round symmetrical finish!!

 

Adam :)

 

Hi Adam, thank you for your useful comments here which are helpful.

 

Re your last para, whilst 'symmetry' may be aesthetically pleasing, and 'client pleasing', BS3998 states it shouldn't be done as the norm when undertake CRs as one should work with the tree's natural shape and form...unless of course that forms part of the spec.

 

Cheers :thumbup1:

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  •  

  • Featured Adverts

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.