Maximum possible reduction of large Oak

[George01]

We have a stunning oak tree in our garden. The problem is, the oak tree is owned by the local authority and it is just not maintained. It is located about 8 metres from my house wall and hasn't been maintained since 2016 and I don't believe has been inspected since then either.

While it saddens me to do so I would like to submit a request to the local authority for the tree to be reduced as much possible as I know any other solution will be out of control again in a year or 2.

 

What would the maximum reduction be for this tree? Would pollarding be an option to reduce the height by ~50% and keep it tree like?

 

Edited February 24, 2021 by George01
Spelling and clarification

[Mike Hill]

15 minutes ago, MattyF said:

I agree but Trees already been topped though.... and it’s recovered from it very vigorously too!
You could remove 35-40% of the trees leaf area and still leave a decent crown shape, drop out the larger stuff to it’s knuckles of where it’s been topped before and leave shape the smaller branches.. you could arguably have reason to do it as it had been butchered in the past and all the regrowth is not natural branch formations, attachments

Should be more pointy at the top,helps the water run off it.

 

Plus it looks more like a tree.

[trigger_andy]

Thats a lovely looking Oak. Will be such a shame to reduce the crown on that. We have a large Beech in our garden that blocks the sun for a couple of hours in the day we looked at a reduction as well but was advised against it. 

[woody paul]

Looks like it has been reduced before, maybe do to 1987 storm damage seen some reports just lately on trees were reports mention, it was a shame tree was reduced years ago, but what they didn't know was it had major storm damage and it was only way to retain tree. 

 

[Stere]

Looks like it may have being pruned  atleast two times at different heights, once above the main Y shape trunk then again all the tips.

 

 

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

A phased approach to the crown reduction would be a good choice, i.e. Yr1 to previous (high) reduction points, ideally early summer time, and if that's not enough to meet your needs, reduce again 2-3 years later to 2-3m below those pruning points. This will hopefully give the tree time to adapt and develop new growth lower down to start to form a new crown.

 

There are many who will say to "hit it in one go", which is an option, and obviously more cost effective, and the tree will respond with new growth, probably prolifically, but my suggestion follow the industry standard for tree pruning (BS3998) and best arboricultural practice  - actually 'best practice' = do nothing

 

"Food for thought"...

Paul

 

PS Is the tree actually the Council's or is it that they control what can be done by a TPO (Tree Preservation Order.) If so, TPO's, the tree is 'yours', or shared ownership maybe, and all costs and liabilities remain with you as the owner (apologies if this is irrelevant.) 

 

[Lowestoft Firewood]

 

7 hours ago, George01 said:

We have a stunning oak tree in our garden. The problem is, the oak tree is owned by the local authority and it is just not maintained. It is located about 8 metres from my house wall and hasn't been maintained since 2016 and I don't believe has been inspected since then either.

While it saddens me to do so I would like to submit a request to the local authority for the tree to be reduced as much possible as I know any other solution will be out of control again in a year or 2.

 

What would the maximum reduction be for this tree? Would pollarding be an option to reduce the height by ~50% and keep it tree like?

 

Why? 

[Paddy1000111]

+1 for why? Trees hate being pruned. You could just get it inspected (or as its owned by the LA get them to inspect it) and suggest that they get it dead limbed but apart from that leave it alone? 

[Khriss]

Plus birdnest evident, if they become active, then no cutting.  Dunno why it needs reducing anyway, a competent inspection is whats first required. K

 

( wouldnt be thinking of a skilled crown reduction if there are Ganoderma brackets like dinner plates at base) 

Edited February 24, 2021 by Khriss

[Mick Dempsey]

1 hour ago, Khriss said:

Plus birdnest evident, if they become active, then no cutting.  Dunno why it needs reducing anyway, a competent inspection is whats first required. K

 

( wouldnt be thinking of a skilled crown reduction if there are Ganoderma brackets like dinner plates at base) 

Send someone up in the next few weeks to knock the birds nest out before it gets occupied, then apply for a reduction.

Cost you 70 quid max.

[Mick Dempsey]

2 hours ago, Paddy1000111 said:

+1 for why? Trees hate being pruned. You could just get it inspected (or as its owned by the LA get them to inspect it) and suggest that they get it dead limbed but apart from that leave it alone? 

It’s already been lightly pruned.