Does my tree need removing?

[Mark Bolam]

I’d be looking at two things Helene.

 

1) What are the ‘targets’ ie what would the tree hit if catastrophic failure WERE to occur near the base?

2) Are there any fruiting bodies (Fungi) visible on the tree, especially near the base, at any time of year?

[Helene]

It would hit our shed and terrace in our garden, and also our neighbour's gardens. Also at the back there are allotments so would do some damage there too, depending on the direction it would fall. Don't think it would hit any houses though. But always risky for anyone around it...

I haven't seen any fungi but will double check tomorrow in day light. Might even do a little video!

 

Another question... What kind of price do you think is reasonable for removing a tree of that size? So far I've had 3 approximate quotes (one only based on photos), between £800 and £1800 😑

My house is semi-detached and access would be done by the side through a gate.

[Mick Dempsey]

Around a grand would be a good price for dismantling and removal.

[JaySmith]

There appears to be significant reaction wood at the site of the cavity, the trees reaction to the material loss. Without knowing the location a concern would be how exposed is the tree, it would appear that it has others around it afford it some protection but is still fairly dominant. If the area is exposed then wind throw and uprooting could be a concern, having that being said the tree has obviously always been in the same location so would have reacted to additional stresses placed upon it.

 

As others have said I don’t believe you would be justified in taking it down under exemption. A decent tree company would be able to carry out a site visit, assess the tree and submit the application on your behalf to council should works be required. 
 

Personally if I were asked to inspect the tree I would be looking to see how much sound wood is still present, the location of the tree (is the area overly exposed) and whether works such as reduction would make the defect tolerable. Weighing up these factors would then allow you to make an informed decision. 

 

[Chris at eden]

1 hour ago, daltontrees said:

 

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.

The regs say evidence needed for structural damage, not just subsidence.  Also needed for works that relate to health and safety.  Its in the regs and on the one app, full compliance with which is also listed in the regs. 
 

I agree though, the LPA must justify refusal. They must address points raised in the app.  But, it can be as simple as saying that there is no appropriate supporting evidence. 
 

when the PINS do the appeals they make no attempt to assess risk. They usually say something like, in the absence of supporting evidence there is nothing to suggest that this tree is any more hazardous than any other tree.  The other thing they often say is that residents should consider the impact of trees before buying a house. I’m alway surprised how blunt they are, I would never say something like that either as a TO or a consultant. 
 

[Helene]

Hi all

 

I've made a video which shows the cavity a bit better than the photos (not the best quality unfortunately...). Perhaps this helps you assess how serious/dangerous it is.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qTGhY5YGb5kFwJw5Lnaj7c-lYDOS-X6F/edit

 

Thanks

Helene

[daltontrees]

3 hours ago, Helene said:

Hi all

 

I've made a video which shows the cavity a bit better than the photos (not the best quality unfortunately...). Perhaps this helps you assess how serious/dangerous it is.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qTGhY5YGb5kFwJw5Lnaj7c-lYDOS-X6F/edit

 

Thanks

Helene

Not worth saving in the long run, and because of shading any replacement tree in the same position will struggle for light. Because there 's a TPO any work needs to be justified and approved but only a zealous official would be looking for it to be reduced to prolong its life. My reason for saying this is that if it was reduced it might not even be visible from any public place, and that is the acid test.

 

I'd apply to remove and replace with a shade tolerant species, emphasising that the long term is best served by this option.

Edited October 28, 2022 by daltontrees

[daltontrees]

17 hours ago, Chris at eden said:

The regs say evidence needed for structural damage, not just subsidence.  Also needed for works that relate to health and safety.  Its in the regs and on the one app, full compliance with which is also listed in the regs. 
 

I agree though, the LPA must justify refusal. They must address points raised in the app.  But, it can be as simple as saying that there is no appropriate supporting evidence. 
 

when the PINS do the appeals they make no attempt to assess risk. They usually say something like, in the absence of supporting evidence there is nothing to suggest that this tree is any more hazardous than any other tree.  The other thing they often say is that residents should consider the impact of trees before buying a house. I’m alway surprised how blunt they are, I would never say something like that either as a TO or a consultant.

I'm not up in the English Regs, they are different from ours. I mentioned them to show that although there are situations where a report is specificaly required it merely implies that in other situations a report isn't.

 

Anyway, the question is still open, why force a TPO on people then force them to spend money justifying a (quite rightly) free application.

 

The 'you should have thought of that before you bought the house' argument is fairly repulsive, and probably wrong at law. Permissions (consents) run with the land, what would the same reporter do about an appeal for the same tree works by a seller who was unable to sell because of the tree? It's a rhetorical question. 'You should have thought of that before you let your tree grow to bigger than a sapling'?

Edited October 28, 2022 by daltontrees

[Vedhoggar]

On 28/10/2022 at 10:30, Helene said:

Hi all

 

I've made a video which shows the cavity a bit better than the photos (not the best quality unfortunately...). Perhaps this helps you assess how serious/dangerous it is.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qTGhY5YGb5kFwJw5Lnaj7c-lYDOS-X6F/edit

 

Thanks

Helene

By the sound of it there is not more than about 25% sound wood  at the base of the tree plus open in several places also the decay might well have extend into root system.  The tree you think would not hit a house but people use area within striking distance of the tree at varying frequencies no doubt.  All things considered if low pedestrian frequency in the facility of tree then probably broadly speaking it might be considered an acceptable risk, this could be made less of a risk if height of tree was reduced but for peace of mind you might considered removing the tree all together and be done with it which would be my preference if it were my tree.  It looks like the tree may have been initially damaged by a garden fire then a pathogen moved in causing decay.  I wouldn't have thought permission to remove the tree would be an issue. My best advise would be to remove the tree.

Edited October 29, 2022 by Vedhoggar

[Patrick goulding]

I dont think you will have a problem with applying to have the tree removed. I don’t think the council officer will argue about it being removed I’m afraid it’s had it’s day and the best option in my opinion is to be removed. You could have it reduced ie pollard to a safe  height and carry out pruning every couple of years but I think we no what will be the end result I think it’s inevitable ☠️ But like the other chaps say if you like having a tree there plant another one in its place. 👍