Thin or Reduce

[Lorry thompson]

I meant to type the fell not the feel:blushing: I made me sound like a tree hugger haha

[RobArb]

I meant to type the fell not the feel:blushing: I made me sound like a tree hugger haha

 

 

nah i think you just like touching trees up!

[Lorry thompson]

Haha your right mate with my spikes and 020

[johnty]

Thinning trees, never been asked by local authority or private client to do one, even if I've said that the tree might benafit more. Here in sunny N Devon it's ruduce, dismantle or fell.

This is a bit of a problem as for our AA asessment you need to prove you have done one.!!!!!!

[TimberCutterDartmoor]

 

So much tosh is spouted about the de merits of reduction, but thinning is far worse IMO

 

Wish tree officers and their leaflets were more balanced; around here they hate reductions quoting, epicormic and waste of time etc etc

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Wish tree officers and their leaflets were more balanced; around here they hate reductions quoting, epicormic and waste of time etc etc

 

 

I hear this an awful lot 'up, down and across' the country and whilst I'm certainly not advocating the appeal process, not least as it hits the public purse strings hard, it an available option.

 

However, better to be proactive, rather than reactive, so why not get to togther as a collective group, i.e. many contractors in one LPA area, and make a representation to the Council. To add strength to your argument refer to Table B.1 of the new BS3998 where it cites many situations, including 'to manage light and shade', where crown reduction is considered "often appropriate".

 

Yes, from the LPA point of view crown reduction, involving an overall reduction of the size of the tree, inevitably reduces the associated 'visual amenity' (the key criteria for a TPO) BUT, in many situations, it will likely increase the longevity of the tree and create a more 'harmonious' and 'sustainable' relationship between the owner and the tree.....and save the LPA TO repeated tel complaints and time consumin spurious applications.

 

Further IF the overall objective is to achieve a 30% reduction, which LPA's particularly don't like, why not go for a phased approach of 15% + 15% with a 2 year break in between. You may say the client wouldnn't go for this but if it achieved their overall objective, albiet not straight away, then I think many would. IF you have a forward thinking LPA this could be done as an indivdiual tree management plan and consented in one go. Obvioulsy it would need to be appropriately conditioned, to ensure it was 15+15 3 years later AND a require to notify the LPA 5 working days beforehand etc. etc. BUT I think it could work.

 

Sorry this all sounds a bit "fluffy bunny"...I'm going (GONE!) maddddd!!!

 

Hpe it to be of interest, and use, and gentle negotiations are the way forward.

 

Good luck...keep me posted!

 

Cheers..

Paul.

 

PS As a matter of interest I expected their to be a lower of resistance to TPO apps to reduce trees on the basis of 'light loss' when the 'High Hedges Bill' came in whihc seeks to address the very same issue.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Thinning trees, never been asked by local authority or private client to do one, even if I've said that the tree might benafit more. Here in sunny N Devon it's ruduce, dismantle or fell.

This is a bit of a problem as for our AA asessment you need to prove you have done one.!!!!!!

 

SORRY...ME again!

 

In a nutshell, the reasoon why we include 'crown thinning' is because it's a very good test of a contractors pruning skills competence, still very much at the core of the 'ArbAC' accreditation. Still, we often see 'lions tailing' presented as CTN which is something of a concern.

 

Crown thinning is a recognised pruing operation in BS3998 (and the Euro Tree Pruning Guide, where it also has a diagram!) and often appropriate in many situations related to managing light and shade.

 

The requirement, as a minimum, is to produce 2 examples of crown thinning (as well as 2x crown reductions....and 1x standard tree planting) and the first example MUST be a 'pure' crown thinning ideallyundertaken to a tree with a maiden crown, i.e. not previoulsy worked (except maybe CL'd). IF theerefater, and provided example 1 is a 'pucker' job, the 2nd example is an extension toa crown clean for instance, or a modified thin of branch regrwoth from previous 'heavy reduction', that's fine.

 

..and it's only once every 4 years* it needs to be demonstarted so please make the effort to impress, perhaps even CTN a tree FOC if none recently available as it may avoid the need for a revisit (incurring additional assessment fees.)

*Yes we do now reassess in Yr.3, i.e. 2 years on from approval, AND we do recheck work quality standards BUT whilst the above operations are deemed mandatory as part of a full assessment/reassessment, the interim assessment is not prescriptive, i.e. show us some tree work you've done locally in the last few months.

 

Right, I'm off...thanks for yer time all!

 

Cheers..

Paul

[RobArb]

Nice info

 

Thanks Paul

[Albedo]

Just to throw a spanner in the works, have you considered RVT - Reduction Via Thinning.

 

Put simply you take out the longest bits right to the base, leaving shorter bits to form the new crown.

 

I often find that reductions include all techniques, RVT, normal 2 or 3 nodes on a branch, and mini pollards.... where theres nothing much to reduce back to so just leave a fork thats been cut back to two pruning cuts. Then removing old stubs, crossing and dead and structural stuff that may include removal of quite large limbs.

 

I never prune to a shape and go by what the tree offers me to work with so I get some pretty wild shapes, my favourite being best described as a squashed or leaning ice cream cone. I may be able to take a photo of one of these to show what I mean

[High Scale]

Just to throw a spanner in the works, have you considered RVT - Reduction Via Thinning.

 

Yes Mesterh brought it up in his post, I try to prune to a natural shape, what ever that is, thinning is normally done as part of the reduction, not that I intentional thin while reducing it's just a natural process of the reduction, crossing limbs or future crossing limbs I remove unless the branches are supporting each other and are rather large like say, on a Beech tree, removing crossing branches on a Ceder of Lebonon, for example, is asking for trouble, re-reducing trees, which I seem to do rather a lot of, I despise and consider it work for works sake.

 

What was the question? Thinning gets my vote over reduction.