Tpo works question

[jjll]

Something that has probably been done many times before, but had me thinking today.

If the council have approved works to a tree with a tpo, but within their approval notice stated that the works should be carried out to bs 3998, yet the proposed works are to reduce a 15m by up to 7m, how can this be compliant with 3998?

As far as I read it, they are happy for the tree to be reduced by a maximum of 7m which would pretty much leave a topped stem.

I’m thinking they have little care as to what happens to the tree, and it would be better to replace and replant.

[Mick Dempsey]

Out of curiosity what sort of tree is it?

[Gary Prentice]

Had this conversation with a National Park Arb officer who had consented a reduction on a Horse Chestnut to 8-10 M (owner put the app in)

 

I'd put another app in afterwards to fell the tree, pointing out that 8-10m was a standing stem. 

 

She, the TO, said she wasn't fussed about keeping the tree due to its current condition, so simply consented the clients application. She was then quite happy to consent my application to fell it.

 

I suppose that sometimes it's easier to consent a bad spec, rather than get the applicant to submit another one that goes further and removes the tree.

 

[Adam M]

Annex C (from memory) describes severe crown reduction. Its quite feasible that the works can be in accordance with 3998.

[jjll]

The tree is a sycamore, home owner put the app in, and tree officer put it through after notice period.
A few other trees in neighbouring gardens have been hammered, so it’s my thought that’s where the home owner got the idea from.
From my previous dealings with apps, if the TO isn’t happy with the extent of works, they request to meet on site to discuss and come to mutual agreement with the client, or simply state what they are willing to allow.
Most tpo apps lean more to a far more sympathetic reduction.
It seems more like an app within a CA, where they don’t really care what happens to the tree.
Just found it different considering it’s tpo’d.

[jjll]

Just had a quick look at annex c, it’s only acceptable if it’s likely to cause risk to people or property, or if the tree was susceptible to loss due to structural collapse.
None of which apply to this tree.