Thought this was considered bad practice

[Chris at eden]

K

 

Am not arguing with you on the quality of work, no its not a proper pollard, a proper pollard should start young in a trees life and be maintained on a cyclic basis there after unfortunately that's modern "pollarding" for you, not pretty but serves a purpose and done all too often.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Arbtalk mobile app

 

Yes agree with you on the standard of work. Its a hard sell trying to advise clients that it bad to top trees when the LA do it. I also realise that we all have to earn a living and LAs have to keep the members happy. If you or me don't do it, someone else will. I personally wont refer to that type of work as pollarding as that would be to associate it with best practice. I would call it topping and explain the difference to the client. Its the only way we move forward. I don't see that there is a need to plant huge forest type trees in narrow streets these days when we have all the streetwise ornamentals. Right tree right place is key!

[Ian C]

Yes agree with you on the standard of work. Its a hard sell trying to advise clients that it bad to top trees when the LA do it. I also realise that we all have to earn a living and LAs have to keep the members happy. If you or me don't do it, someone else will. I personally wont refer to that type of work as pollarding as that would be to associate it with best practice. I would call it topping and explain the difference to the client. Its the only way we move forward. I don't see that there is a need to plant huge forest type trees in narrow streets these days when we have all the streetwise ornamentals. Right tree right place is key!

 

Totally agree.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Arbtalk mobile app

[fagus]

In my view not pollarding. I still think better than no tree, but it expensive ongoing management. New planting is the best approach but put crudely if they escape vandalism it does only replace one ball of useful photosynthesising/respiring mass with another. Removal and replacement with more appropriate species is also expensive. A good LA Tree Strategy would put forward a phased removal policy.

 

As part of landscaping the highway many of these trees were planted along with new road design by City or Town Engineers- well before the creation of Parks Departments and the pruning(!) was also done by the highway staff.

 

When the verge management was put into Parks departments, they had the unenviable task of deciding on the trees future management. For the new era it would not have been the greatest of starts to start removing the trees. Often the landscape management changed departments with very little budget provision.

[Chris at eden]

In my view not pollarding. I still think better than no tree, but it expensive ongoing management. New planting is the best approach but put crudely if they escape vandalism it does only replace one ball of useful photosynthesising/respiring mass with another. Removal and replacement with more appropriate species is also expensive. A good LA Tree Strategy would put forward a phased removal policy.

 

As part of landscaping the highway many of these trees were planted along with new road design by City or Town Engineers- well before the creation of Parks Departments and the pruning(!) was also done by the highway staff.

 

When the verge management was put into Parks departments, they had the unenviable task of deciding on the trees future management. For the new era it would not have been the greatest of starts to start removing the trees. Often the landscape management changed departments with very little budget provision.

 

 

Agree with you totally. Tree renewal programs are becoming more and more important with the aging tree stock but don't happen too often.