CA - Pollarding Application - % of height or volume?

[adamthearborist]

Hi all - have completed an CA application for the pollarding of a poplar in a clients garden. The tree's been pollarded many times before so there shouldn't be any problem with the application, just one question for the experts though..

 

The Council asked for a percentage that is going to be removed - what is the standard response based upon, the percentage of volume or percentage of height? For the tree in question it would only be around 5-10% volume, but 35% height..

 

I gave them both, but when people talk of the percentage without specifying, are they talking volume or height..?

[Paul Barton]

It's a little surprising and disappointing that the LA have asked you to state a percentage - these were intentionally done away with in the last revision of BS3998 because of situations like yours. Percentages are open to many forms of interpretation and are not specific enough.

 

If I were you I would reply stating the length of branch material to be removed and the final height of the tree when complete - if possible accompanied by some photos showing where you intend to cut to (it should be obvious for a re-pollard).

[daltontrees]

I gave them both, but when people talk of the percentage without specifying, are they talking volume or height..?

 

Neither, I'd say they're talking nonsense.

[Andy Clark]

Neither, I'd say they're talking nonsense.

 

 

Likewise. Sounds like the TO is being somewhat pedantic in order to stall for time. .

 

In terms of percentage, pollarding is pretty obviously going to remove 100% of the crown. A no-brainer really.

 

And if they've been done before, and you're planning to RE-pollard to previous points, then I would think height/size again is going to be fairly obvious to any TO who gets of his behind to go and take a look. .

 

A few points though that I've picked out from your post (might just be the way it's worded), but you don't make an "application" for trees in a CA, you "notify" the LPA of the works you intend to carry out - giving them 6 weeks notice to put a TPO on the tree if they deem the tree valuable and in need of protection.

 

It may be that your "application" wasn't worded in a black and white manner and open to interpretation, so I would just write back to the TO stating your intentions more clearly - ie, "it is intended that the trees are re-pollarded to their previous points", or "it is intended that the trees are pollarded to leave a final height of "XYZ"metres from ground level"

 

I would also include in your letter the date that you intend to carry out the work, and make sure that it's 6 weeks and 1 day on the dot from the date they received the notification.

 

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

[458 Lott]

Date of your letter the original one

U could argue that no notice is required as repeat works

Ie they sanctioned it before was not an issue then should not be an issue now but be mindfull if other trees have been removed in the area making your tree more visible or having more amenity

Shoot straight stay alive

[treequip]

Hi all - have completed an CA application for the pollarding of a poplar in a clients garden. The tree's been pollarded many times before so there shouldn't be any problem with the application, just one question for the experts though..

 

The Council asked for a percentage that is going to be removed - what is the standard response based upon, the percentage of volume or percentage of height? For the tree in question it would only be around 5-10% volume, but 35% height..

 

I gave them both, but when people talk of the percentage without specifying, are they talking volume or height..?

 

In a CA its not an application its a notification.

 

The LA has 2 options, they can make a TPO to prevent you executing your notified works or they can let you get on with it

[treesnatcher]

Just make sure your notification states where the trees are located and give a finished height for a first pollard or state re-pollard to previous height then as Andy Clark said put in diary 6 weeks and a day.

Edited June 2, 2013 by treesnatcher
mistake

[daltontrees]

U could argue that no notice is required as repeat works Ie they sanctioned it before was not an issue then should not be an issue now but be mindfull if other trees have been removed in the area making your tree more visible or having more amenity

 

I would be cautious about that, what is notified is the intended work not the intended outcome, and unlike TPO application the reasons for the work don't need to be given. LPA could argue that in not TPOing last time notification was received it has not necessarily sanctioned the longer term management of the tree at that height. It would certainly not give immunity from prosecution. Whether prosecution would take place (probably not) and whether it would be successful is a separate matter.

There could also be other considerations for the Council in deciding about re-polling such as the tree's health following the last polling and whether it can stand another one just now. I think it's always safer to notify, wait and then proceed. Right now would be a bad time to re-poll up here, some of teh poplars have only been in leaf a few weeks, midsummer would be less harmful to tree, no?

[458 Lott]

Fair comment j but tree health is not an issue in a notice

But the timing if your intrested in long term tree retention or not is paramount.

Always good to read your thoughts

Shoot straight stay alive

[daltontrees]

Ah, but tree health could be an issue for the LPA. If they think re-polling could tip the tree over the edge and that the amenity the tree provides is important, they could TPO it as a response to the notice and the proposed works. Unlikely but perfectly competent use of their powers.

Personally I think poplars should be left alone until they get too big, then should be removed entirely. They always look and smell ghastly a couple of years after heavy pruning.

I still say bung a notice in, cover client's behind, and repoll in 7 weeks when the tree will stand it better.