Do these trees need to come down?

[onetruth]

I'd be gutted to lose them.

 

I think I'd be tempted, rather than reducing the whole crown, to remove any particular branches that caused me concern (ie. dodgy looking ones that might actually fall on the house).  If you do a reduction, you are going to develop vulnerable spots all round the tree and quite high up.  That would be fine if you intend to repeat the reduction every couple of years, but I would rather focus on removing or reducing the weight on the branches on the house-side of the tree, where a failure might actually do some damage.  Reduction would look better, but probably do less to ease anxieties than simply pushing back the most menacing-looking branches.

[wildfisherman]

6 minutes ago, MattyF said:

the one on the left looks like it’s had a bit of crown die back ,

The very top blew out of it about 25 years ago. I was younger then and maybe more reckless and went up and tidied it up myself.

[benedmonds]

2 hours ago, tree-fancier123 said:

I would love to spend a day in such a beautiful spot, if anyone gets to take a saw to them, it will be a nice job to go to

hackers for hire

 

DO NOT do this..  The reduction on the smaller one would tolerate it, but the bigger one like that is WAY to hard.. 

Personally I don't think reducing is worthwhile.   Plant another 2 in front and fell in 10 years time when the new ones are established..  

 

[nepia]

Reduction via thinning rather than all over shortening? small branches can be cut out, leaving smaller wounds.  The tree retains its outline but allows the wind to filter through it rather than hitting a comparatively solid target.  Same thinking as hit and miss fencing.

[Darrin Turnbull]

With them being close to the house could be a advantage.

I‘ve seen a massive Oak tree blown against a house before with no damage.

Just because of its close proximity.

 

 

[tree-fancier123]

4 hours ago, wildfisherman said:

There is indeed plenty of space, but there are deer also and I wouldn't want any more fencing.

[Dan Maynard]

I'd go with planting replacements now and felling later, reductions for me are for when trees outgrow the position and these have plenty of space.

[john p]

As said, if that were mine I’d be loath to lose them, they really ‘fit’ where they are. I’d go with the above advice of plant 2 more and see what happens in 10 years.

[tree-fancier123]

4 hours ago, benedmonds said:

DO NOT do this..  The reduction on the smaller one would tolerate it, but the bigger one like that is WAY to hard.. 

Personally I don't think reducing is worthwhile.   Plant another 2 in front and fell in 10 years time when the new ones are established..  

 

Ok you dont like my mutilation pruning spec, but your 10 year fell - are you saying dont worry re his wife's safety concerns, or do you think there is reason now to justify the expense of an arboricultural report addressing the likelihood of damage to people or property within the next decade while the replacements are growing?

Edited March 14, 2019 by tree-fancier123

[slasherscot]

personally id put up with them as long as poss  .......dont reduce them , only asking for problems in 5 to 10 years,,,,,,,,,, plant 4 or 5  silver birches 30 yds further away from house,  then fell the 2 big trees when the wifes nagging gets unbearable?????

Edited March 14, 2019 by slasherscot