Tree surgeons fined after excessive pruning of protected copper beech

[tree-fancier123]

I haven't yet done a TPO reduction - I don't feel I'm skilled enough, but now I know its only £600 if I mess up, may be tempted to rasher a bit off one.

Photo from the link above, different angle, would be interested in seeing outlines in red of what people would have aimed for, seems to me the 2m on one of the sides isnt enough - trouble is people want symmetrical rounded crowns after. Looks like they took approx 4.25m off in places 'Investigations by council officers revealed that the permitted works to the branches had been exceeded by 125 per cent'

Maybe the first bloke cut it away from the roof and thought I'm never gonna get this looking nice keeping to spec, I'm off.

 

So it wasn't council coming back routinely to check it was someone local who didnt approve who phoned in - I've had this myself on a non TPO tree - I was asked to trim back hard(variegated maple)

Neighbour ' Are you shaping that?'

Me ' Yes'

Neighbour ' You've f*cked it now - come back here and have a look'

[Rupe]

I like percentages, mostly because of the vagueness of it and them impossibility of measuring. You can't cut to a pre determined distance (2m reduction) if there isn't a growth point at 2m. So as Steve said earlier do what's right for the tree, and within the limitations of the planning consent. So a 25% reduction does not mean you reduce it by 25%. It means 25% is the limit of your reduction. The quote to the client can be worded very differently than the planning application. So you achieve what the client wants and has agreed and you don't exceed the planning allowance and everyone is happy.

The problem can arise with clients obtaining permission and then expecting you to achieve exactly what's printed on the bit of paper.

Crown volume reduction s are usually only 15 to 35%. After that your in pollard ing territory or at least your beyond the point of a natural looking reduction.

The pictures show no suitable pruning points achieved so the percentages are irrelevant it's just bad work for that species.

[Rupe]

Is it just me that confused by that statement %125 exceeding ?

125% of 25% reduction? Yes, meaningless really.

[Arctostaphylos uva-ursi]

From the application "20% crown reduction to help stop so many dangerous branches falling" How does that work?

What a lot of BS, and I don't mean 3998!

[Gary Prentice]

11 minutes ago, Arctostaphylos uva-ursi said:

From the application "20% crown reduction to help stop so many dangerous branches falling" How does that work?

What a lot of BS, and I don't mean 3998!

Don't you know that trees get big and therefore dangerous, just waiting for an unsuspecting victim to drop a dangerous branch on? 

[Arctostaphylos uva-ursi]

I also like "Branches and birds mess are falling daily in the property garden and also the public path". This just smacks of an tree hating owner who resents having a TPO'd tree in his garden.  I can just hear it "Don't get me wrong I love trees but they should be confined to parks and woodland". 

I think pressure may have been applied to "take a little more off" and rather than following the spec the tree surgeons have tried to satisfy the owner. 

I personally think the 20% / 2m reduction was totally uncalled for.

[BigfootBjornson]

I think it’s worth noting that LA’s rely on enforcement to take legal action. If enforcement fail to recognise the impact of such work, or if the issue is assigned a low priority status by enforcement due to heavy work load, you can’t blame the tree officer/TPO Officer for not producing the results which we all know as Arborists would be completely justifiable ie financial penalties. Legal action is not as straight forward as it may seem and in many cases, regardless of the law, many LA’s loose in court.

 

 

[David Humphries]

The morphology of the canopy looks somewhat misrepresentative of a virgin crown for tree type in the image.

It 'looks' like there is a primary branch/stem missing from the left hand side and that there were perhaps 5 branches/stems at somepoint the past and the canopy has reiterated in the meantime hence the difference in branch diameter from left side to right side of lower crown.

 

 

Would be interesting to know if there is a large diameter historical pruning wound on the property side of the trunk at about 2/3m at height.

 

 

 

[Gary Prentice]

Almost certainly David, maybe when the house was built?

[onetruth]

9 hours ago, Rupe said:

Crown volume reduction s are usually only 15 to 35%. After that your in pollard ing territory or at least your beyond the point of a natural looking reduction.

I agree with everything else you said, but not the bit I've quoted.  A 15% volume reduction is hardly noticeable, and 35% is way off "pollarding territory"!

 

Let's suppose a the crown is a sphere, 10m diameter.  Cutting back from the centre (lifting, topping, sides)...

to get a 15% reduction, you take about 25cm off in each direction.
to get a 35% reduction, you take about 70cm off in each direction.

 

If you half the radius, you're only left with 1/8th of the original volume. 

 

Specifying reductions in terms of volume is a really bad idea imo.  Much better to say "cut back to 4m from stem", for example - it is much easier to visualise (for person doing the work, person making the decision, and client), and doesn't require a before-work-started reference to check the result against.  That said, I too like the ambiguity and freedom given by a spec to "reduce by 25%".