Areas order - aaargh!

[James Royston]

Hi all,

 

I'm dealing with a site which has an area order on it which is just over 50 years old. The site contains trees which range from very young to obviously older than 50 years old.

 

The tree owner just wants to know which trees are protected, they aren't intending on doing any work or cutting anything down, and at the initial stage they were just curious as to which trees were covered by the TPO. After 16 weeks of emails back and forth with all sorts of contradictory nonsense coming from the council, the council have now said that the only way to tell if these trees are protected is to use Mitchell's rule to estimate tree age, and that this is accurate enough to determine whether or not trees within an area order are protected.

 

Apart from that, the council still haven't said which trees are protected, nor have they given us any indication as to how we are supposed to tell for ourselves, but they have said that any tree under 32cm diameter is definitely not protected.

 

Does any one have any experience of this - how do we find out which trees are protected? Is the Mitchell rule appropriate?

 

Cheers,

 

James

 

 

 

 

[Stubby]

So , If you want / need you can do your 1st thinnings on anything under 32cm .

[James Royston]

6 minutes ago, Stubby said:

So , If you want / need you can do your 1st thinnings on anything under 32cm .

Yeah, true, I think that the tree owner could crack on and remove anything under 32cm diameter if they wanted to, but they aren't wanting to remove anything at this stage - they just want to know which trees are protected. 

[Wonky]

Not being funny. And this is how I see it. any tree that is less than 32cm is not protected.

this leaves the other trees. 
what I think you need to work out is  how big is a 50yr old tree  it it’s surroundings  using Mitchell's rule, which I’d say is a little ambiguous and not easy to follow as not all trees behave the same, species Etc.

 

read page 2 of this link. And I think you would need to cut some to see if your measurements and calculations are in the ball park  ie cut a tree down that’s about 32cm and use the rule to calculate and count the rings, then work out what a protected tree should be .

 https://www.chilternsaonb.org/uploads/files/AboutTheChilterns/Woodlands/The_Why_and_How_of_Tree_Measurement.pdf

 

btw i,m sure you could find other links to  read about Mitchell,s rule. And as the council have been vague then I,m sure if you aired on the side of caution  you,d be on the right footings but keep good records. Because as Mitchell says there are exceptions 😉. this and  your records may be your defence.

Edited May 13, 2021 by Wonky

[doobin]

We had similar the other week. So said to customer we’ll do it, but cash, and if there turn out to be more than 45 rings on the stump then we were never here 😂

 

 

42 rings. Which was more than I thought there would be!! Was a crappy leylandii which was once the end of a hedge. Bit close. 
 

was a good bit more than 32cm, but client had emails from the the council stating that only trees present at the time of the houses being built were protected. 

Edited May 13, 2021 by doobin

[James Royston]

35 minutes ago, Wonky said:

Not being funny. And this is how I see it. any tree that is less than 32cm is not protected.

this leaves the other trees. 
what I think you need to work out is  how big is a 50yr old tree  it it’s surroundings  using Mitchell's rule, which I’d say is a little ambiguous and not easy to follow as not all trees behave the same, species Etc.

 

read page 2 of this link. And I think you would need to cut some to see if your measurements and calculations are in the ball park  ie cut a tree down that’s about 32cm and use the rule to calculate and count the rings, then work out what a protected tree should be .

 https://www.chilternsaonb.org/uploads/files/AboutTheChilterns/Woodlands/The_Why_and_How_of_Tree_Measurement.pdf

 

btw i,m sure you could find other links to  read about Mitchell,s rule. And as the council have been vague then I,m sure if you aired on the side of caution  you,d be on the right footings but keep good records. Because as Mitchell says there are exceptions 😉. this and  your records may be your defence.

Hi Wonky, I get what you're saying, that there is an implication in the council's comment that all trees over 32cm are protected. But this is assuming that Mitchell's rule is an appropriate method of deciding whether or not a tree is protected.

 

It can't really be considered as appropriate can it? It seems unlikely to me.

 

The tree owner doesn't want to cut anything down at the moment, so counting rings is not an option.

 

 

 

 

[James Royston]

2 minutes ago, doobin said:

We had similar the other week. So said to customer we’ll do it, but cash, and if there turn out to be more than 35 rings on the stump then we were never here 😂

 

 

32 rings. Which was more than I thought there would be!! Was a crappy leylandii which was once the end of a hedge. Bit close. 

Haha, that's funny. Do you know the rough dbh of these leylandii?

[Peasgood]

1 hour ago, James Royston said:

Haha, that's funny. Do you know the rough dbh of these leylandii?

I've got leylandii that are circa 45 years old with DBH 36", may even be bigger.

 

I'm going to measure tomorrow now.

Edited May 13, 2021 by Peasgood

[James Royston]

24 minutes ago, Peasgood said:

I've got leylandii that are circa 45 years old with DBH 36", may even be bigger.

 

I'm going to measure tomorrow now.

Wow! Please do measure and let us know, that'd be great.

[Dan Maynard]

Wow! Please do measure and let us know, that'd be great.

I've cut a pair of leylandii which were planted as a pair about 40 years ago and then never trimmed, stick in the mind because I think the only ones I've done with a single stem all the way to the Christmas tree at the top. Bigger one was about 28" at the gob (461 wouldn't reach across) smaller one was shaded by other and so only about 20", was also a lot shorter.