Jump to content

Log in or register to remove this advert

LPA Refusal


Recommended Posts

I got this back from a local TO the other day. The tree is within an area TPO and Conservation Area.

 

;This part of the application was refused for the reasons:

The points of attachment to the

main stem of these two branches

are at the same level. The

removal of both branches would re

sult in large wounds that woul

d expose significant wound wood

and therefore have potential to allow ingr

ess of decay into the tree stem.'

 

The application was to remove 3 lower large laterals from a mature ash to lift the crown. I know size of branch is important and diameter of stem but my thoughts are if a tree is healthy and the pruning cuts are right, wound wood isn't necessarily a problem so why refuse on 'potential' decay. I would love to hear the thougts of those more knoweldgeable and experienced than myself. I will try and find a photo to attach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Log in or register to remove this advert

I got this back from a local TO the other day. The tree is within an area TPO and Conservation Area.

 

;This part of the application was refused for the reasons:

The points of attachment to the

main stem of these two branches

are at the same level. The

removal of both branches would re

sult in large wounds that woul

d expose significant wound wood

and therefore have potential to allow ingr

ess of decay into the tree stem.'

 

The application was to remove 3 lower large laterals from a mature ash to lift the crown. I know size of branch is important and diameter of stem but my thoughts are if a tree is healthy and the pruning cuts are right, wound wood isn't necessarily a problem so why refuse on 'potential' decay. I would love to hear the thougts of those more knoweldgeable and experienced than myself. I will try and find a photo to attach.

 

Should've also made it clear that it the ash on the right. We reduced the ash on the left a year ago but were not allowed to refused to reduce the ash on the right at the same time by the same TO. Can't remember his reasons off the top of his head but was something along the lines of, it doesn't need it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the reason for the works? Could you achieve a similar end goal by shortening the two limbs rather than removing them?

Honestly, I wouldn't spec their removal to the stem (based on the one pic) and think the TO has a point. Oh, and the pedant in me must point out it wouldn't expose wound wood. It may expose wounded wood, but I expect he means ripewood...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the application would have been treated differently if it was for phased removal of the limbs. The potential for decay could have been reduced to an acceptable level by requiring a satisfactory medhod statement that controlled when the work was done, by whom and how.

 

And I would be asking Sloth's question - what is the reason for the works? If this is an important tree for amenity and the owner's reason for wanting crown lifting were not compelling, the Council could be right in refusing it, although it could certainly have worded it more elegantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the reason for the works? Could you achieve a similar end goal by shortening the two limbs rather than removing them?

Honestly, I wouldn't spec their removal to the stem (based on the one pic) and think the TO has a point. Oh, and the pedant in me must point out it wouldn't expose wound wood. It may expose wounded wood, but I expect he means ripewood...

 

Nothing wrong with pedantry when the quasi-judicial purpose of wording demands an absence of ambiguity.

 

Could have been plainer if the wording had said "The removal of both branches would result in large wounds that would have unacceptably high potential to cause decay and loss of the amenity that the tree provides"

 

Leavign the question hanging, wold removal of just one branch be OK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you're only going to get one, and you're a contractor, get 3998. And use it.

 

Wish it was only one. 3998, 5837, 8545 here in the office. At home for course work is parts of the old one for transplanting rootballed trees, another one on soil testing (PI, MPI and the like)and I don't know what else. It's an expensive past time for the individual to keep informed.

 

But yes, 3998 definitely or even TreeLifes abridged version, which I think is around £35.

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.