LPA Refusal

[Dorset Treeman]

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.

[Dorset Treeman]

Hopefully the photo is attached showing the 3 lower laterals. The smaller diameter one (lower left) was approved but the larger two above were refused.

[Dorset Treeman]

Aaarrrggghh. Not sure why image is on its side and cant seem to change it. Sorry!

[Dorset Treeman]

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.

[Gary Prentice]

Looks like you're asking to create two large wounds opposite one another. Guessing at the area of exposed heartwood that this would create I don't think he's being overly unreasonable.

 

Sorry, my humble opinion based on the photograph

[sloth]

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...

[daltontrees]

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.

[daltontrees]

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?

[Gary Prentice]

I wonder how many people actually have access to the standards? I do know of a couple of LAs that didn't at one time.

[Gary Prentice]

 

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.