Root Pruning In RPA

[Essex arborist]

Heres the situation:

 

Mature Sycamore with rpa of 8.0m already reduced by someone to 6.4m standing on a building plot roadside boundary with say half the root plate under pedestrian path & road. Tree in good health with no previous works standing around 21m tall.*

 

Site slopes to downwards towards road.

 

LPA has already granted full planning permission to develop the site building right up to the already reduced rpa which will require approx. 2-3.0m depth of earth to be removed around remaining rpa to install retaining wall. Not only that on one side approx. 1.5m into rpa is a proposed pedestrian path to be cut into the plot leading directly from the roadside requiring more root pruning and removing earth to approx. 2.0m into an already reduced rpa.

 

To top it all the site is covered in Japanese knotweed to which the specialist contractor suggest excavating 1.0m depth of soil from whole site including removing the TPO'd tree. The LPA really dont accept this as a viable option.

 

Clearly this design should never have been approved by the LPA but they state the tree must be retained and protected during construction but what chance has it got for the future?*

 

My concern would be potential windthrow with so much root pruning.*

 

Crown reduction would only put more stress & drain on stored energy and being a mature specimen i dont think it would cope very well.

 

Can the LPA remove planning permission after granting it if they realise the tree is under threat?

 

What can you do with the tree to safe guard its future, bearing in mind the building design constraints already granted by LPA?

 

Advice & comments would be welcome.

[Paul Barton]

I don't think the LPA can revoke the planning permission, but they can impose conditions which must be adhered to. Firstly a condition requiring a full and detailed Arb method statement would seem obvious....poor arb that's got to write it though!

 

Are you saying that the new build will effectively hem in the tree with the building one side and the road the other?

 

Why was the RPA reduced? Surely it can only be offset in one direction if it's an 'open grown' tree (whatever that's supposed to mean!).

 

A few ideas:

Can the pedestrian path be constructed using a no-dig method?

Can the knotweed be controlled by direct stem injection for now instead of the large excavation of soil in the RPA?

[Essex arborist]

I don't think the LPA can revoke the planning permission, but they can impose conditions which must be adhered to. Firstly a condition requiring a full and detailed Arb method statement would seem obvious....poor arb that's got to write it though!

 

Are you saying that the new build will effectively hem in the tree with the building one side and the road the other?

 

Why was the RPA reduced? Surely it can only be offset in one direction if it's an 'open grown' tree (whatever that's supposed to mean!).

 

A few ideas:

Can the pedestrian path be constructed using a no-dig method?

Can the knotweed be controlled by direct stem injection for now instead of the large excavation of soil in the RPA?

 

 

 

The LPA have requested a detailed method statement but with the design already agreed and rpa *set and agreed prior to my involvement its almost an impossible task to safe guard the life of the tree.

 

Yes the plot is quite small so the tree will have the road one side and building right up tight to the reduced rpa. Most of the build is underground so loads of excavation work around the site.

 

The rpa was created by somebody else nobody seems to know who and no previous Arb reports so we can draw our own conclusion to who set it. My understanding is as you rightly said the offset cannot be applied because the tree is not in open ground.

 

The pedestrian path will involve no dig operation plus root pruning and retaining wall installed because the level of land will need to be excavated couple of meters below current depth.

 

The site has been managed for Japanese knotweed for the past 4 years by specialist contractors. My concern is if they *carry out root pruning and continue to spray its more stress for what is going to be a doomed tree.

 

Just not sure which way to go on this one to cover my own back & without upsetting too many people along the way - *HELP!

[Bundle 2]

What a seemingly pointless exercise in wasting time, money and amenity !

1) Can you really be expected to shoulder responsibility for the future stability of the tree ?

2) As above only re longterm health of the tree? ( assuming it stands up ok )

3) How realistic is the proposal of "No dig" ? ( I refer to alterations of levels etc )

If planning has been granted and as Paul says, cannot be revoked, surely if it can be argued that the proposals cannot be undertaken without stepping beyond the remit ( ie-retention) then you cannot be held responsible for simply carrying out the tasks for which you are hired ?

 

At the end of the day...I d take the view that a) if you dont do the work, someone else almost certainly will & b) the specification is not your own and despite repeated professional observations and recommendations made by yourself regarding concerns highlighted above ( which you should elocute to the appropriate party,in writing, politely ) your client was aware of the risks and wanted to continue anyway !

 

Its that or walk away Id guess.....?

[Treecreeper1961]

Despite having done a few basic BS5837 reports over the last three years and having learned a bit about the standard and it's application studying the tech cert recently, there is still a lot I don't quite get about it's standing in the planning system and the weight it's findings carries.

I have asked this question before and not really got an answer I felt was clear:

Does a tree included on a survey as one suitable for retention have legal protection?

The answer I felt I was given was Yes, but only until the Tree Officer agrees it can be cut down or interfered with, through a process of consultation.

 

Since then, I have spoken to Tree Officers who lament the fact that they are undermined and over ruled by the planning departments, or committees at least, that they serve.

The system sucks if your a tree. If the over riding public interest is to approve development then even TPO's are irrelevant it would seem. If a tree like this falls foul of the system and ends up uprooted, or plagued by a succession of decay organisms as a result of the development, then the LPA should be prosecuted under the terms of their own TPO.

[Treecreeper1961]

Having read my/the previous post I realise it wasn't very helpful, apologies about that.

It is a difficult position you are in, possibly an arb nightmare!

As Bundle says, if you are going to take on the job you have to make the arboricultural implications of the proposed actions known.

State the potential and likely physiological problems that may ensue, referencing modern literature on the subject. Your caveat.

Prepare a method statement to the best possible standards for what is required,

but state the recognised industry wisdom of what will be the likely outcome, recommending a stringent monitoring program for physiological health and mechanical stability of the tree.

 

Have you considered discussing your concerns with the Tree Officer? Perhaps they have similar concerns.

A question that I would ask is, 'Do you really want to be involved in this project, or need to be?'

Having said that, if you simply state what you believe to be right and then provide a best possible method statement, I don't see that it could compromise you.

[Essex arborist]

Thanks for your help guys. Ive decided to report exactly what my findings are which is sadly recommend the tree be felled based on reasons already stated above. If the LPA decide to ignore my recommendation then its their liabilty should the tree fail or suffer windthrow in the long term. It really goes against the grain to condem a perfectly healthly tree but the LPA leave me no choice.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

This situation sucks

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I might suggest also posting this on the UKTC forum, the members there would be more able to shed some light on this particular situation/subject.

[Amelanchier]

...the members there would be more able to shed some light on this particular situation/subject.

 

There is no light to shed - the LPA made a mistake, the tree paid the price. The OP made the right decision given that it was the only sensible decision to make...