Does my tree need removing?

[peds]

23 minutes ago, Mick Dempsey said:

I am presuming it’s a sycamore, so on that basis

Could be a fair assumption.

I'm trying to spot some leaves around the base for a positive ID, but I can't make any good ones out, and they seem to be a good hodgepodge. 

 

Anyway, I just happened to stumble on this delightful little fact:

The Sycamore is a member of the maple family, known formally as the Aceraceae. (The Latin genus name Acer means sharp, and is a reference not to the form of the tree itself but to its timber. Wood from maple trees, including sycamores, was used for making spears.) 

 

[Mick Dempsey]

8 hours ago, peds said:

Could be a fair assumption.

I'm trying to spot some leaves around the base for a positive ID, but I can't make any good ones out, and they seem to be a good hodgepodge. 

 

Anyway, I just happened to stumble on this delightful little fact:

The Sycamore is a member of the maple family, known formally as the Aceraceae. (The Latin genus name Acer means sharp, and is a reference not to the form of the tree itself but to its timber. Wood from maple trees, including sycamores, was used for making spears.) 

 

Well there’s a little bit of useful info when we revert to warring tribes after the breakdown of society.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

10 hours ago, Mick Dempsey said:

I am presuming it’s a sycamore, so on that basis..

I think it won’t be long before it fails, could be years yet, but it’s certainly not got much of a future as it is.

 

If you are very keen to retain it I’d suggest starting a pollard cycle, take a third off, rinse and repeat every five years or so till it’s had it’s day.

 

If you’re not that fussed about it, have it out (I would) depending on what the tree officer says of course.

 

Condition of the tree aside for a minute (since it cannot be adequately determined from the available information) Mick hits the spot with the inferred question - what do you want to happen with the tree?

 

If you want to remove it you will have no problem finding someone to convince you it is imperative. It might take a bit more effort to find somebody that can provide credible options for retention - but there are always options, depending, predominantly, on what your starting point is. 
 

As a bit of an aside, but potentially verified by the rather basic suite of qual’s, outfits that are willing to pay a subscription to a 3rd party (checkatrade in this case) for work leads are either desperate for work, don’t have an established reputation / customer base or possibly scratching around for anything that is available.  Just my take on it and there might be some decent outfits on such promotion / advertising platforms but I’ve always held that to do so is a sign of an outfit which maybe cannot stand on its own established reputation.  
 

Since it needs a planning application you might hope that a LA tree officer would examine the work spec / justification and provide an objective assessment - but (depending on location) even that is variable….

Edited October 27, 2022 by kevinjohnsonmbe

[daltontrees]

It's an open question. Is it the planning authority's job to assess risk and vitality during the application process?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

1 hour ago, daltontrees said:

It's an open question. Is it the planning authority's job to assess risk and vitality during the application process?

Interesting question - maybe (almost certainly) not directly, but there must be (at least a degree of sub conscious assessment) in the process of considering whether the application work spec is reasonable under all of the circumstances.  It might be that the assessment immediately concludes that the presented case is unjustifiable and therefore rejected, there certainly wouldn't be a requirement (although there could be an offer) to propose something that could be closer to acceptable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Helene]

Thanks for all your replies.

Regarding the tree specie, I’m not an expert but I used an app that suggested Sycamore maple based on the leaves (see photo below).

I had a second tree surgeon around who suggested removing was the best way forward. He did mention about pollarding as an alternative but told me if it was in his garden he’d remove it.

I’m based in Chester, let me know if anyone qualified is nearby that could give an opinion (I don’t have anyone qualified that I know, hence checkatrade).
The first person did write me an email (for free!) confirming the need to remove. The second suggested writing a report but for a fee. So I used the email in the TPO application, and I am hoping the tree officer would be able to recommend the best course of action.

Those trees are one of the reasons we bought the house (very recently) so I’d rather keep it, but I guess safety first!

 

Edited October 27, 2022 by Helene

[daltontrees]

Defo sycamore.

[Joe Newton]

If your preference is to retain the tree is worth getting the tree inspected by a qualified person with their PTI (Professional Tree Inspection) qualification and the professional indemnity insurance to cover their giving of advice.

 

Most of us have the basic tickets listed above, it's doesn't mean any kind of academic qualification.

 

If could be that a gentle reduction would mitigate any risk by lessening the sail area.

 

There are various tests that can be done to determine the extent of the decay but they are costly and likely uneconomical.

 

Personally from the photos I don't see any cause for immediate concern, but then again I'm just going on experience and photos.

[daltontrees]

6 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Interesting question - maybe (almost certainly) not directly, but there must be (at least a degree of sub conscious assessment) in the process of considering whether the application work spec is reasonable under all of the circumstances.  It might be that the assessment immediately concludes that the presented case is unjustifiable and therefore rejected, there certainly wouldn't be a requirement (although there could be an offer) to propose something that could be closer to acceptable.

Playing devil's advcate, there a re 2 extreme views. One says that TPOs are a real burden on private owners already, that's one reason why applications are fee-free, so why shouldn't the onwer just state reasons for the application and let the planning authority assess and decide? The other says that the applicant should prove the need for  the work, as it's depriving the neighbourhood of tree amenity. A fee free application suddenly costs £250 for a supprting report , but that's life!

In a fair world the first argument should prevail but in the real world some councils are insisting that every TPO application should be accompanied by a supporting report, which seems rather unfair.

The TPO Regulations (in England anyway) say that a report is needed to support applications based on subsidence, but no other circumstances specifically require a report. This would tend to support the first view, that if justification (rather than just reasons) are needed for applications under other rationale like daylighting, risk etc. it should be the panners that justify refusal.

The Regulations are different in Scotland, and I would put that down to geology, ultimately.

[daltontrees]

8 minutes ago, Joe Newton said:

If your preference is to retain the tree is worth getting the tree inspected by a qualified person with their PTI (Professional Tree Inspection) qualification and the professional indemnity insurance to cover their giving of advice.

 

Most of us have the basic tickets listed above, it's doesn't mean any kind of academic qualification.

 

If could be that a gentle reduction would mitigate any risk by lessening the sail area.

 

There are various tests that can be done to determine the extent of the decay but they are costly and likely uneconomical.

 

Personally from the photos I don't see any cause for immediate concern, but then again I'm just going on experience and photos.

I reckon if you put a winch on that at midheight and pulled you'd uproot it before the stem buckled.