Tree Report.

[Amelanchier]

Sounds like the council want to know if the decking has a detrimental effect upon the trees. So whilst you're not being asked if you think the tree should stay - it'd be worth mentioning why you consider that it should be removed.

 

My concern would be damage to the root zone from the decking installation, stem damage during the construction process and rain shadow. Now if the first two have happened, removing the decking will make no difference.

 

More of a long term problem will be rainshadow. Its going to be a lot dryer under in those RPAs with the decking there. Whether that has the potential to have a detrimental effect is a matter of judgement on a range of variables.

[benedmonds]

I'm not sure I'd want to take this on especially as a first report..... Lots of variables and it could end all up in court with a proffesional witness ripping your report,and you to peices.. It could all end up as a lot of bother for a £100.

[Topcat]

Firstly I would say the Sycamore does not look worthy of a TPO and its condition warrants removal,so DDD given the risks eg in a back garden. If it is to be retained,then the decking should allow water to leach so I can't see any problems on that side. Just refer the council to street trees that have block paving around or tarmac. The construction method may raise a few ???., but what would the SULE, (safe useful life expectancy)of been had the decking not been installed, not long IMHO. I would do the report. No need to be bias looking at the pics.

[Amelanchier]

You don't think much of Councils eh Topcat?

 

Firstly I would say the Sycamore does not look worthy of a TPO and its condition warrants removal,so DDD given the risks eg in a back garden.

 

Risks of what? Stem failure? Realistically, out of 100 Sycamores like that with a large diameter long pullout wound with good callus, how many would you expect to fail????

 

If it is to be retained,then the decking should allow water to leach so I can't see any problems on that side. Just refer the council to street trees that have block paving around or tarmac.

 

The decking intercepts precipitation. Fact. How much it does so and what effect that will have is the point of judgement. I'd agree that its probably something the tree could deal with over time. Refering the council to poor practice is worthless. Would you justify topping it by providing pictures of trees that have survived and regenerated a new crown?

 

The construction method may raise a few ???., but what would the SULE, (safe useful life expectancy)of been had the decking not been installed, not long IMHO. I would do the report. No need to be bias looking at the pics.

 

What about the hornbeam?

 

Thing is, this is a planning issue and not a tree valuation seminar. Presumably, the council consider that planning permission was required. If an application came into me for the decking I'd be looking for some evidence that the decking could be achieved without harm to the trees.

 

Perfectly reasonable IMO.

[Topcat]

Tony.. It's not the councils I have a problem with, it's usually the staff they employ and the double standards that they allow.

 

With regards to how many trees would fail, 1 would be to many in that location. Would you leave that tree next to a highway? There,s a link to a recent case on another thread

on here,which Delga tried to defend and lost. Judges don't like any forseen risk.

 

We agree that the tree could in the long term deal with the decking. Your reference to topping has no bearing, but I would suggest monitoring. using ref to the many trees that have survived the onslaught of tarmac or concrete in many cases installed by a council or utility contractor.

 

If planning was required and the chap did not apply,then he deserves what he gets.A simple phone call could have saved him time and money. Like you say, evidence prior to construction is/was the key.

[Amelanchier]

With regards to how many trees would fail, 1 would be to many in that location. Would you leave that tree next to a highway?

 

Yeah, I probably would.

 

Why would the failure of 1 tree out of 100 be "too many"? That's a 1% failure rate. IMO that's likely to be a over estimate. Are you saying we shouldn't accept a failure rate above zero where trees are next to targets?

 

You can justify any removal with that logic. Its not a reasonably practical approach to tree management.

 

The most likely failure mode of that tree is branch failure not stem failure at the wound. If you remove trees on the likelihood of branch failure then there won't be many left.

 

I assume you refer to the fact that the owners children use the garden - when is the sycamore most likely to fail? High winds and storm events; when the kids are unlikely to be under it.

[Bundle 2]

I have been reading this article recently ...thought it was an interesting aspect of tpo law, such as it is......Highlights some of the conflicting issues.

 

http://www.tree-care.info/uktc/archive/2009/msg00403

[Gavin]

What would you call enough, I reckon £80-£100 what do you think ?

 

we do a bit of tree reporting for architects.... pain in the ass

nothing but trouble stress head white collar types everything has to be BS this and BS that make sure you know your stuff and dont under estimate how long you will spend at a computer writing it all up.

ps word your report with "IT IS IN OUR OPINION"

i only do it to get work out of it but do charge a fair ammount

full site visit and report can charge upto £500 but they do spring it on you

"can you go to ..... and have the report on our desk by monday"

yeah but its going to cost you