Routinely refused works ?

[Apex]

Word for word this advice is on one local council's advice page.

But is it right ?

 

"TREE WORKS THAT ARE ROUTINELY REFUSED BY THIS AUTHORITY

 

• Crown reduction. This work will usually only be permitted where there are clearly identified health and safety implications of not carrying out the work. Proposed crown reductions of healthy trees for reasons of improving sunlight/daylight penetration, creating or improving views or imprecise tree management reasons are unlikely to be approved.

 

• Crown thinning. This work will usually only be permitted where there are clearly identified health and safety implications of not carrying out the work i.e. management of a lapsed pollard or a previously crown reduced tree.

 

........Having read this it would appear the council's advice contradict the guidance in BS3998:2010.

 

This was recently addressed with the Council in a local Arb working group meeting. The Council requested I put this to the wider Arb community and receive feedback before they will consider making any possible changes to the Council's policy.

 

Any comments would be gratefully received ....

[Jesse]

I like it, and its good to see someone in Local Authority who is obviously passionate about trees and looking beyond short term resolutions to issues that once the works have been carried out never last much beyond one or two growing seasons before needing to be addressed again and usually have long term adverse affects on the trees health and development and the clients pocket.

[Mark Bolam]

Totally agree Jesse.

[Le Sanglier]

Recipe for disaster, looks like some just out of college hippy has been promoted too early and is implementing unworkable rules.

Once some oversize trees start falling over and breaking apart the tune will soon change.

[Compo]

I'm with the Council on thiis. Unless there's a very good reason for the work, leave them be

[jaime bray]

If you look at the terminology of the statements, then reflect upon how words may have been overlooked in knee jerk reaction responses, then you can see that they are statements to guide those submitting applications.

 

The use of 'clearly identified health and safety implications' denotes that the usual submittance of 'I can not sunbathe' mentality to tree management will not be accepted. A long-term vision of aesthetically pleasing, urban contributing, and safe for retention; within the surrounding area trees, seems to be the councils objective in my opinion.

 

The safety aspects are in keeping with the guidance of current best practice for tree management and reducing the risk averse society that has evolved.

 

The other aspect to consider is the cost implication of councils looking through endless tree work apps that are not in keeping with environmental mind-sets that are trying to be adopted and implemented by people with a broader awareness of the vital contribution that trees play in the planet.

 

Only by slowly changing the awareness and respect of trees by the 'not in my back yard' masses will we benefit from the variety of attributes trees possess for our planetary existence.

Edited August 2, 2013 by jaime bray

[Compo]

Exactly

[Rupe]

Is this for TPO trees? If so then I agree, all works to TPO trees need to be for a reason of safety and/or damage prevention, not for "I want more light" reasons.

 

If its for tree in a conservation area then I disagree. They can only prevent works by issuing TPO's, conservation areas are just places where you need to inform your intent so the LA has the opportunity to place a TPO if they choose. They cant say if you can thin or reduce a tree or not, they can only TPO it and then make the conditions in my first paragraph apply.

[Pat Ferrett]

The more hassle they make owning trees the less chance people will want to plant more.

[Shane]

It looks like they are explaining clearly that they are protecting trees which need it.

 

There are too many people out there who think they can do what they like to trees.

 

I'm sure we have all met the chav brigade who dont like clearing up leaves and want all the trees removed. I, for one, support LAs who adopt a tougher stance.

 

As for the newly promoted hippy.. well good luck to him.

 

Our job,as professionals, is to do what is best for the trees - let's support a LA that seems to share this view.

 

Too many dick-head Audi driver types who love concrete!