TPO proposed reduction works to Beech Tree

[intamixx]

I have a TPO on a Beech Tree which I am wanting to reduce in size as it causes excessive shading. Please see attached picture.

I am applying to reduce the height by 5m and lateral spread by 3m. Its approximately 15m tall. I've had it 20% thinned about 3 years ago, so a bit of foilage has been removed in the past.

An arboriculturist from the council visited today and said what I was proposing was harmful to the tree. He stated that I would not be able to reduce the height, but would only allow me to crown lift about 2-3 metres from the base (to a suitable pruning point) to allow more light onto our lawn / house.

He ended up saying maybe I wait another 2 years and we see how it looks from that point.

My question is; how big is this tree likely to get? Is there any way I can get it reduced in size? My lawn is already un-even due to the shallow nature of the beech tree root. I'm trying to maintain the tree as best I can and don't want to manage a massive tree if I can avoid it. Any suggestions would be most appreciated.

The RPA is about 8.5m and behind the tree is a main road (where I don't think the roots would spread to).

The tree is about 80-100 years old.

Edited May 27, 2015 by intamixx

[RobRainford]

5m off the top of that is harmful and would be topping it essentially. I don't advise taking the top off to get more light in. The tree blocks the light coming through the crown, so a thin or a crown lift can make a bigger impact, crown lifts make the tree look less imposing as you can see sky under the crown.

 

Go for the crown lift, do something about those conifer hedges too if you can. They are blocking light too. Maybe apply to have it re thinned. Copper beech do block a lot of light and the dark foliage doesn't help.

 

My council sees light as a bit of a trivial issue so won't really allow very much work maybe a crown lift or light thin if justified enough.

[Paul Barton]

Is the shade issue connected to your proposed extension?

 

Rob is right, a 5m reduction would likely cause some large pruning wounds which wouldn't be great for the tree. To manage this tree at its current size without causing damage to it would mean lighter but fairly regular pruning.

[Jesse]

Short answer, to how big is this tree going to be, in your lifetime, not much bigger if left alone, you also should consider the soil and its optimum growth potential given that your site provides, on clay it will have less potential , and the TO will also be considering what your intentions are, fair play to him for telling you how it is, best to find another tree not TPO'd with less amenity value to distroy . Hope that helps

[Chris at eden]

Absolutely no way you will get a 5m reduction on that tree for blocked light. The TPO was served to stop people doing those kind of works. It's crown height is already almost 1/3rd of the overall height so you wont get much lifting either. And just to round it off it doesn't need thinning to a great degree, you may get 20% at a push but I think 10% is more realistic.

[MattyF]

As the others have said really.

I would not of thinned it at all .. Your removing growth that would make suitable reduction points in the future you may have possibly been able to get away with a 2-3 meter reduction if the crown had not been thinned, I would possibly ask for a 2 meter reduction in a few years but the harder you hit trees the faster and thicker the regrowth if it survives is any way and essentially you end up with a denser larger crown with weaker growth than if the tree had been left in the first place. Less is more in the long run.

[Mick Dempsey]

I know, it's crazy, no reductions allowed, obviously 5mtrs is too much but stopping reasonable reductions to relatively young garden trees is stupidity.

So it comes back denser? So what? Do it again and again on a 5 year cycle.

[arboriculturist]

Apply for a 2 m crown reduction.

 

In the meantime get those evergreen hedges reduced to 6ft or 2 metres.

 

Don't forget the nesting birds.

 

Good luck.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

It looks like a relatively compact garden, street behind and the roof features visible in the distance don't tend to suggest recent development on that side of the road. Is the garden / house which is impacted by the tree a recent development where the tree was TPO'd as a consequence of the development?

 

A large tree, already considered to be too big for it's environment and causing distress to the owner (assumed from the comments of the OP.) It would be interesting to know the history of when / why the TPO was initiated.

 

That great well used phrase "amenity value" probably doesn't carry much weight with the home owner and outright refusal to grant some form of amelioration will probably result in the ultimate demise / loss of the tree (by fair means or foul) at the point where the home owner finds their life blighted by the tree or they become frustrated by what might be perceived as local government intransigence.

 

Be interested to know more about the TPO.

[Mick Dempsey]

It looks like a relatively compact garden, street behind and the roof features visible in the distance don't tend to suggest recent development on that side of the road. Is the garden / house which is impacted by the tree a recent development where the tree was TPO'd as a consequence of the development?

 

A large tree, already considered to be too big for it's environment and causing distress to the owner (assumed from the comments of the OP.) It would be interesting to know the history of when / why the TPO was initiated.

 

That great well used phrase "amenity value" probably doesn't carry much weight with the home owner and outright refusal to grant some form of amelioration will probably result in the ultimate demise / loss of the tree (by fair means or foul) at the point where the home owner finds their life blighted by the tree or they become frustrated by what might be perceived as local government intransigence.

 

Be interested to know more about the TPO.

 

Great post

There will be more and more "mysterious sudden death syndrome" if this policy of no reductions continues.