Tree Officers and Reductions.....

[benedmonds]

Is this work acceptable?:

 

T1 -Oak Tree -Crown reduce by the removal of the outermost 2m of the leaf bearing canopy back to suitable secondary growth points. Ensuring a flowing branch line and a natural crown habit for the species. Resulting pruning cuts will not exceed 100mm in diameter.

 

Remove dead wood over 50mm.

 

I believe trees in the urban environment that are going to out grow their position should be maintained, and that regular minimal reductions, like giant bonsi are better than letting it get out of control..

 

The pic is from google street view so bigger now.

[Mesterh]

I think its quite acceptable, why not?

 

Are you saying the LA should only allow less of a reduction?

[benedmonds]

LA, will not allow any reduction, they might allow minimal pruning back of specific branches although I would have to reapply and therefore wait another 8 weeks!

[Mesterh]

Ah right I understand now.

 

I thought LA had given you the spec to prune back 2 meters and you thought it was too much.

 

It its strange when they don't allow light reductions but will happily top street trees when required.

 

I suppose its a case of do as I say not as I do, and don't bother leading by example.

[Bundle 2]

Looks like two trees in that ( dreadful) photo..One behind, taller and a slightly different color. Im surprised they didnt allow but then, it looks okay to me.

[benedmonds]

Looks like two trees in that ( dreadful) photo...

 

Not bad seeing as I got it off the web sitting in my office...

[ukminch]

Whats the reason behind the reduction, hard to tell but presumably the tree was there before the house?

 

R

[Amelanchier]

Good solid spec. If you gave similarly solid reasons for the work then appeal the decision.

[Simon Rotheram]

The tree does not appear to be growing out of control of its environment, maybe shortening back of the branches towards the property if required (cant tell how close they are) crown clean, lift and thin - possibly 15-20%.

 

It is difficult to judge properly as I havent seen the tree in person so maybe completely wrong!

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I think the spec was great, and easy to understand the ezpectations, limitations and has left nothing open to enterpretation.

 

The tree is in my view going to benifit from the work specified, and give it a more balanced profile and canopy.

 

I hate thins, its just not in keeping with tree physiology, we need to get away from this disdain for reductions, it really does enhance tree form, mechanics and resource distribution.

 

I would however see the overly extended ash as the higher priority, the iver is further decreasing the ashes (high light demands) ability to put out growth lower down and is extending to compete A) with the ivy B) with the hedgrow C) with the Oak which it has begun to effect as can be seen via the canopy suppresion on the right hand side (middle level canopy)

 

Oak) The long term view would see this tree reduced now, to limit its ultimate size, as in this location with high targets (cars and pedestrian/residential accses) to allow this tree to reach its full potential (40 metres) would eventualy lead to issues beyond repair, and reductions out of sensible specifications to get it down to a sensible size without a pollard. BRE research also indicates that oak is one of the most water demanding species, which would also suggest long term managment now is a wise move, this will also stop its need to increase root crown flare/tension roots and obvious disruptions to the tarmacadum surfaces.

 

I would as tony says, appeal, you have fair justification for the works, it isnt going to do the tree any harm and will probably ensure the long term retention of the tree and its amenity value.