Crown reduction

[Mountain man]

Completely disagree, thinning is bad it's what trees do when they die !

Plus most of the time it means the tree just gets lions tailed because people can't be bothered to do it properly anyway ,so there is more wind sail leverage and it only encourages week epicormic regrowth and your removing any suitable future reduction points.

I'm all for taking 2 meters or what ever out of branch tips to allow better wind sail and leverage... I can't remember the figures but it reduces a lot of pressure just a light reduction.

I remember years ago on Arb talk there was a discussion about a large sweet chestnut and what to do with it.

I would of reduced it ... The vast majority of people said leave it , OP never had to do any thing because it tore apart in the next Storm.. Would of been interesting to see if it had stayed up if reduced.

 

Well said Matty, agree totally. The whole lifting and thinning instead of reducing is a crock.

[MattyF]

There's a time and a place where any means is necessary for all tree works , but I'm not fan of thinning unless it's tip work and I would classify that as a reduction? , crown cleaning I'm all.for but I've seen 35% thins or 35% reductions and 15% thins put in specs and it's wrong IMO.

[Chris at eden]

Who said anything about thinning badly or lion tailing? That's not crown thinning. Same as making internodal cuts isn't a reduction. I was only talking about pruning to BS spec. Reduction exposes more cross sectional branch material and takes longer to occluded. When they do occlude it is usually via bark inclusions due to a loss of apical control, these then are structural weak points. Visually they don't look natural, you can see they have been pruned.

 

I don't get the logic that trees thin when they die either. They thin when stressed but when they die they tend to reduce. As in retrenchment.

[MattyF]

So naturally a tree retrenches it self and it does not thin unless stressed.

Raising to eternity and leaving massive wounds to mess up the tree IMO is not a good alternative either, atleast reduction cuts if done properly are small and on the tips not effecting leverage through a badly healed wound from the stem or half way along the branch ....the cause of lot of failures.

[Chris at eden]

So naturally a tree retrenches it self and it does not thin unless stressed.

Raising to eternity and leaving massive wounds to mess up the tree IMO is not a good alternative either, atleast reduction cuts if done properly are small and on the tips not effecting leverage through a badly healed wound from the stem or half way along the branch ....the cause of lot of failures.

 

I kind of agree but its not a fair comparison. If you are going to do any kind of pruning it should be done properly where possible. You can't really compare a well done reduction with a lift which is way too high and with huge cuts. That is just not crown lifting.

 

IMO reduction has far more impact on the tree visually. I know some folk like that trimmed and manicured look but I'm just not a fan. I'm also not a fan of the vertical regrowth that always results. My original post was about a councils position on reducing TPO trees in that they don't support it. I agree with that view, and in my opinion there is a good chance they would win on appeal if refusal was worded properly.

 

I don't see that you could refuse a 15% thin based on detrimental impact on visual amenity and have any chance of winning on appeal as there wouldn't be any.

[MattyF]

You could argue a 15% thin would be the same as a reduction if done right... Both would still cause reactive upright growth but less so if a lot of thought is put in to stop light hitting newly exposed wood and causing more dormant bud burst than necessary and the pruning is accurate .. thinning causes it more central to the crown because most climbers won't go on the tips... They both cause reactive growth, my argument for not thinning would be say in the future there was a need to reduce wind sail down and you can't because there's no decent growth points... I've flat refused to thin 3 trees this year as I can't see how in any way it would help already stressed trees... The only tree I've reduced has been this one for obvious reasons although apparently we are going to ruin Mrs miggins already butchered maples this morning

[Mark Bolam]

We get a common situation down here where developers have built houses close to trees (usually oaks), which have been TPO'd.

 

People move in and within about a month decide they 'need more light'.

 

The TO's standard reaction seems to be 'I better let them have something' so specs a 1.5m crown reduction on a semi-mature tree.

 

It's a problem.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[Mark Bolam]

That's crazy talk Ed.

Think of the money they'd lose....

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[Mountain man]

Personally I think TOs are completely pointless, people should be able to do what they like with trees on their property.

Bunch of bureaucrats clogging up an already complex life.

It's a whole little industry of paperwork and meetings and BS. Followed by utterly pointless

1.5 meter reductions.

People would still want trees in their garden, and want them retained and trimmed.

Do they have TOs in France and Germany and the U.S.?

[Joe Newton]

Personally I think TOs are completely pointless, people should be able to do what they like with trees on their property.

Bunch of bureaucrats clogging up an already complex life.

It's a whole little industry of paperwork and meetings and BS. Followed by utterly pointless

1.5 meter reductions.

People would still want trees in their garden, and want them retained and trimmed.

Do they have TOs in France and Germany and the U.S.?

 

 

And how many mature trees would be left unraped in this country were it not for TPOs and TOs?

 

You don't have to agree with the TO's decision, but you can either appeal it, or get on with what you've been allowed.