Dropped kerb planning rejected due to RPA

[Kylus Sylvestris]

hi, I've just noticed this thread, and bear with me as I've had a few plymouth gins...taking ginspiration from Ernest Hemingway who used to write drunk, edit sober..

For what it's worth, I would go back to first principles- refute the central point, and dismiss arguments from ignorance (draws a conclusion based on lack of knowledge or evidence without accounting for all possibilities). Whoever they are, don't like the fact you're within 12x DBH. What a ****************ing joke... (sorry - that's the gin talking). Try this for example...

The RPA is starting point for an intelligent (!) discussion nothing more. It does not know, or define where the tree roots are operating. I don't know, you don't know and they don't know.

Perversely the oxymoronic RPA, on open grown trees protects about 1/2 the root system. And actually serves to protect a 'volume' of soil sufficient to sustain the tree. That volume doesn't follow radii at text book depth in urban areas. It's determined by site conditions. The starting point of your argument with xyz is all too cock. Yes typically fibrous roots are thought to be in the upper regions of the soil. But when said soil is capped with tarmac who knows where the roots are? Trees in urban areas will rarely have a symmetrical root system. 

The question you need to answer is.. what effect will your dropped kerb have of the trees?

The answer is a product of sensitivity (of the tree) x the amount of damage. I'm guessing it a really tough urban tree. Thats fully tolerant of a little pain/pleasure. If everyones else has a dropped kerb and you haven't had mass tree death - whats the real risk?

Dig a hole on your side of the fence and send my a pic.Even dig it 300mm deep, soak it thoroughly, fill it with water and time it to drain... and do a soil texture test...blah blah...you can build a reasonabley robust argument based on evidence rather than rules of thumb and assumption....

goodnight.

“The depth to which roots penetrate, and hence the area of ground required to provide the necessary soil volume, will need to be ascertained by digging trial holes…

D. R. Helliwell (1986) THE EXTENT OF TREE ROOTS, Arboricultural Journal, 10:4.

Roots are opportunistic and will grow wherever environmental conditions permit. 

Root depth and extent can be severely limited and highly irregular in urban settings. 

Ref-3   P. E. Gasson & D. F. Cutler (1990) TREE ROOT PLATE MORPHOLOGY, Arboricultural Journal, 14:3.

“Soil type has a large influence on the spread and depth of the root system, as does the level of the water table.”

Susan D. Day, P. Eric Wiseman, Sarah B. Dickinson, and J. Roger Harris. Contemporary Concepts of Root System Architecture of Urban Trees. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 2010. 36(4): 149–159 

“studies suggest that vigorous trees less than 30 cm diameter may be able to tolerate roots being severed on one side as close as three times the trunk diameter without a major loss in stability or crown decline. Larger trees, such as those on which the specifications were based, may be less tolerant…

Gary W. Watson, et al. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 2014. 40(5): 249–271 

J. ROBERTS, N. JACKSON & M.SMITH. Tree Roots in the Built Environment. TSO 2006 

“A tree growing next to a road or building is likely to have virtually all of its roots growing on the opposing side of the tree” pg 245

“a commonly observed effect of root severance after trenching near trees is loss of vigour in above-ground growth” pg249

[Gajendra]

23 hours ago, John Skinner said:

Heck ... up here we'd just put down a small wooden ramp against the existing kerb and drive over the f***er. End of 😉👍

Although this is a very tempting option I know someone who got parking ticket for doing the exact same thing 😁

 

[John Skinner]

12 minutes ago, Gajendra said:

Although this is a very tempting option I know someone who got parking ticket for doing the exact same thing 😁

 

 

No traffic wardens up here. So we don't have that issue either 😁👍

[daltontrees]

9 hours ago, Kylus Sylvestris said:

If everyones else has a dropped kerb and you haven't had mass tree death - whats the real risk?

 

That's a good quality rant but I don't accept the logic of this one statement. If a tree has a major root severed or killed it can and almost certanlly will admit pathogens, and they don't give up. So it might be 10 or 20 years before the true cost to the tree manifests itself. I have seen my fair share of street trees lost to Kretzschmaria, and it is usually possible to see that the infection is due to root damage in one or more sectors. The real risk is deferred, disconnecting it from the 'me, now' of modern Britain.

Arbtalkers love slagging off Councils (who sometimes deserve it, but not always). But we should all remember that not only is the Council the statutory protector of trees, it owns the road and footway and the tree. Come onto my land and damage the roots of my trees and I'll soon stop you.

As I recall (and I can't be bothered checking) the original whinge in this thread was that the applicant was being obliged to investigate root distribution rather than being prevented from doing a dropped kerb, full stop. So on that count I agree totally, present fact-based evidence that roots won't be adversely affected, or park your car somewhere else.

Yes I remember now, the real real whinge was that others got away with it, but not the applicant.

[Gajendra]

56 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

That's a good quality rant but I don't accept the logic of this one statement. If a tree has a major root severed or killed it can and almost certanlly will admit pathogens, and they don't give up. So it might be 10 or 20 years before the true cost to the tree manifests itself. I have seen my fair share of street trees lost to Kretzschmaria, and it is usually possible to see that the infection is due to root damage in one or more sectors. The real risk is deferred, disconnecting it from the 'me, now' of modern Britain.

Arbtalkers love slagging off Councils (who sometimes deserve it, but not always). But we should all remember that not only is the Council the statutory protector of trees, it owns the road and footway and the tree. Come onto my land and damage the roots of my trees and I'll soon stop you.

As I recall (and I can't be bothered checking) the original whinge in this thread was that the applicant was being obliged to investigate root distribution rather than being prevented from doing a dropped kerb, full stop. So on that count I agree totally, present fact-based evidence that roots won't be adversely affected, or park your car somewhere else.

Yes I remember now, the real real whinge was that others got away with it, but not the applicant.

Hi Juels, 

 

Thanks for your response. I am willing to pay towards the investigation but the email from the Asst. Director of Highways says it is highly likely there will be roots on our pathway. Well there's obviously going to be some sort of roots there could be from the council trees or could be from our garden trees. Do you know if there any rules on what size roots and how deep council will dig to investigate this? 

Thanks

[daltontrees]

1 hour ago, Gajendra said:

Hi Juels, 

 

Thanks for your response. I am willing to pay towards the investigation but the email from the Asst. Director of Highways says it is highly likely there will be roots on our pathway. Well there's obviously going to be some sort of roots there could be from the council trees or could be from our garden trees. Do you know if there any rules on what size roots and how deep council will dig to investigate this? 

Thanks

There's no rule. I expect the minimum dig depth will be the depth required for the road crossing and all its base, sub base and kerb foundations. A typical footway is about 210mm deep, whereas a driveway built to adoptable standards is more like 360mm. If you're unlucky this could necessitate services being buried deeper. It's not the size of roots that should matter, it's the rooting volume that will be removed or steriliseds or disconnected by the severing of larger roots.

[Gajendra]

1 hour ago, daltontrees said:

There's no rule. I expect the minimum dig depth will be the depth required for the road crossing and all its base, sub base and kerb foundations. A typical footway is about 210mm deep, whereas a driveway built to adoptable standards is more like 360mm. If you're unlucky this could necessitate services being buried deeper. It's not the size of roots that should matter, it's the rooting volume that will be removed or steriliseds or disconnected by the severing of larger roots.

Thanks for getting back so quickly really appreciate it. You sound like someone who know what he is talking about, and you may not be able to answer this but I am going as anyway 😁 in your expert view how likely would there be a roots that are within 3m from Lindens tree and 2.5m from Maple tree that can jeopardise our plan? Thanks

[daltontrees]

1 hour ago, Gajendra said:

Thanks for getting back so quickly really appreciate it. You sound like someone who know what he is talking about, and you may not be able to answer this but I am going as anyway 😁 in your expert view how likely would there be a roots that are within 3m from Lindens tree and 2.5m from Maple tree that can jeopardise our plan? Thanks

Likely to very likely.

[Kylus Sylvestris]

8 hours ago, daltontrees said:

That's a good quality rant but I don't accept the logic of this one statement.

Quite right. But I guess the point was, we don't know enough about the site to make an appropriate evaluation. We can debate whether it'll impact the trees until we have a bit more of an idea about where the roots are. Dig a hole.

 

[Kylus Sylvestris]

Just now, Kylus Sylvestris said:

Quite right. But I guess the point was, we don't know enough about the site to make an appropriate evaluation. We can't debate whether it'll impact the trees until we have a bit more of an idea about where the roots are. Dig a hole.

 

typo!