Tree surgeons fined after excessive pruning of protected copper beech

[Gary Prentice]

6 hours ago, onetruth said:

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%".

Crown volume is an unusual term. Ive never seen that in a works specification, but would assume it meant to crown thin- if the figure was below 30%

[Rupe]

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%".

Apologies, my post meant to say 35% is not far off pollard ing territory. Slight typo there. The rest is as a see it and works for me. How I explain it to clients is totally different, not using distance or %. How I explain it the the tree officer is different and in whatever form they ask for. And how I explain it to the climber is different too. We all speak different tree languages and speaking to clients with arb speak or tree officer speak does not work too well in my opinion.

[Rupe]

So what I mean is you only really get crown reduction from 15 to 35%. After that you are in height reduction territory and therefore nearly pollard ing territory.

 

15% is so little off no one will notice.

 

25% is a bit more leaving a very natural appearance that no one will really notice but the effects of extra light etc should be felt.

 

35% is (depending on species) about as far as you can go and still leave some resemblance of normal appearance. Should be quite noticeable even to the un trained eye.

 

So those could be your definitions. Using meters is tricky because you can't measure and cut. So a 2m lateral reduction can't be done if there is no secondary branch at 2m. And if there is and the secondary branch is 1m long then you've only achieved 1m reduction.

 

But distance reductions are fine for planning applications. Reduce by 2m means "not exceeding" 2m. So you can reduce to 3m and leave 1m secondary growth or whatever you want to do to achieve the appearance required within that specification. But you can't cut to that specification so the client shouldn't told that you are going to reduce their tree by Xm. You can explain using the vagueness of the % system better. As long as you know what they are after and you achieve it within the limits of the planning consent then everyone's happy.

 

Try not go get too caught up in the maths of a volume reduction, it's just trees and they don't conform to maths.

 

 

[stihlmadasever]

20 hours ago, David Humphries said:

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.

 

 

 

You lost me at morophology...

im a council climber...

Layman's terms if you could please sir,

Many thanks guvnor!

Doff's helmet

[Gary Prentice]

3 minutes ago, stihlmadasever said:

You lost me at morophology...

im a council climber...

Layman's terms if you could please sir,

Many thanks guvnor!

Doff's helmet

The morphology of the canopy looks somewhat misrepresentative of a virgin crown for tree type in the image. Translation: It doesn't look like a typical unpruned tree.

It 'looks' like there is a primary  branch/stem (a branch growing from the trunk/main stem)missing from the left hand side and that there were perhaps 5 branches/stems at somepoint the past and the canopy has reiterated(grown some new stuff) in the meantime hence the difference in branch diameter from left side to right side of lower crown. (Branches are thicker on one side than the other)

 

If you don't learn the big words you'll never be able to charge the big money.. and impress us normal folk.

 

 

morphology

• the study of the forms of things, in particular:
• a particular form, shape, or structure

[stihlmadasever]

4 hours ago, Gary Prentice said:

The morphology of the canopy looks somewhat misrepresentative of a virgin crown for tree type in the image. Translation: It doesn't look like a typical unpruned tree.

It 'looks' like there is a primary  branch/stem (a branch growing from the trunk/main stem)missing from the left hand side and that there were perhaps 5 branches/stems at somepoint the past and the canopy has reiterated(grown some new stuff) in the meantime hence the difference in branch diameter from left side to right side of lower crown. (Branches are thicker on one side than the other)

 

If you don't learn the big words you'll never be able to charge the big money.. and impress us normal folk.

 

 

morphology

• the study of the forms of things, in particular:
• a particular form, shape, or structure

Thank you Mr Prentice 

[Mark Bolam]

To alter the shape of a tree with a linear crown reduction could be £600.

To alter the morphology of a tree with the same linear crown reduction would be £1500.

Does that sound about right Gary?

[onetruth]

£600 for a beech, £1500 for a Fagus.

[Gary Prentice]

 

 

5 minutes ago, onetruth said:

£600 for a beech, £1500 for a Fagus.

And the client asks “Which tree is the Fagus?”

[onetruth]

Just now, Gary Prentice said:

And the client asks “Which tree is the Fagus?”

Answer in writing, add £200 to the bill.