TPO proposed reduction works to Beech Tree

[Mick Dempsey]

:001_smile:Back later, got to price a job

[Andy Clark]

Andy, whilst you are technically correct that the TPO Regs do not make reference to BS3998, and indeed the applicant is not bound to refer to such, nonetheless the planning portal associated guidance (copy attached) states:

Tree work should be carried out to a good standard. LPAs will usually require the work to comply with BS 3998 Recommendations for Tree Work

Hence I would always advise applicants to ensure their applications align with the industry standard document (that said it is frustrating the actual legislation uses terms such as top, lop, uproot )

 

Regards, and hope you're well..

Paul

 

Hi Paul,

 

Very well chap, thanks. And likewise.

 

Totally agree, and i'm sure you're very well aware that almost every consent notice will stipulate that works are not only carried out in accordance with 3998, but equally are carried out by a reputable "tree surgeon".

 

The point that was made though and the one that I posted in relation too, was regarding the wording of the initial application, not the way in which the works are carried out.

 

Reduction in height by 5m and lateral spread by 3m is a clear and concise description of the works - works which, if granted, should then be carried out in accordance with 3998. (Correct cuts, cuts to growth points etc.....)

 

So whilst that description for the purpose of the application may not necessarily align with the strict wording of 3998, it is still in accordance with 3998; in as far that it gives measured amounts of reduction as opposed to good old percentages, and thus would be a totally acceptable description, well within the capacity for any TO to understand the intended works.

 

You at the show next weekend? Bout time we finally had a coffee and a natter. 👍

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Hi Andy, "yes indeed" (at the show) and in principle would a cuppa n a natter but in practice, frustratingly, often time n tasks don't allow...but please do call into the AA tent on the off chance.

 

The other thing I find interesting about the whole TPO app/ BS3998 / TPO guidance etc is the document refers to CRs being specified in terms of finished dimensions, e.g. CR to leave a crown dimension of X & Y etc. (ideal for subsequent planning enforcement action if exceeded) BUT very few applications reflect this AND very few LPAs require it.

 

Ah well, at least gives us things to discuss.

 

Best for now..

Paul

[Andy Clark]

Hi Andy, "yes indeed" (at the show) and in principle would a cuppa n a natter but in practice, frustratingly, often time n tasks don't allow...but please do call into the AA tent on the off chance.

 

The other thing I find interesting about the whole TPO app/ BS3998 / TPO guidance etc is the document refers to CRs being specified in terms of finished dimensions, e.g. CR to leave a crown dimension of X & Y etc. (ideal for subsequent planning enforcement action if exceeded) BUT very few applications reflect this AND very few LPAs require it.

 

Ah well, at least gives us things to discuss.

 

Best for now..

Paul

 

Ha haa, very true! And that number of LA's that don't require apps to reflect 3998 probably somewhere equates to the number of TO's that condemned the proposed changes from percentages to metres during the consultation for the 2010 re-work. Hey ho.

 

After all, the benefit that came with percentages, meant that at least a climber, the reputable ones, could retain the flexibility to work to the trees natural shape/form. The change to metres however ultimately removed that flexibility, often placing the climber in breach of the wording of 3998 now, if they try and stick to natural shape/form rather than strictly observing the measured metre. After all, there are no straight lines in nature.

 

And you only have to look at the increase in the number of Hat-stand reductions up and down the country to see the knock on effect of that in change in practice.

 

Not saying that percentages were strictly the right way, but they were certainly less wrong than prescribing reductions to reflect metres. After all, the regs are there to protect amenity - and a tree is most "valuable" in terms of amenity, when it looks most natural. The regs are not there to create a stick (no pun intended) or to make it easier to beat those who breach planning.

 

Anyway, we digress.....

 

In my humble opinion it is simply a matter of Law vs industry best practice. In an ideal world best practice should mirror the Law and give guidance on how to adhere to it. But with 3998 certainly, especially in the context of TPO/Con area trees, it doesn't - because the guidance within 3998 does not mirror the spirit of the TPO regs. And industry best practice certainly does not override the Law, nor should it have a higher importance than the Law placed on it.

 

And again, I'm confident that the principle was mirrored by the TPO regs re-work in 2012. Were the 2012 regs amended to meet 3998? Or should it be/have been 3998 that is/was written moreso to mirror the TPO regs?

 

Chicken? Egg?

[Mick Dempsey]

Really? Would love you to quantify that statement with evidence to support it.

 

Because all this talk disregards the most important factor in the equation.

The happiness or otherwise of the client. In real terms the client is not happy with a lift and thin. They want it smaller so they get some direct and un impeded sun on their lawn/pool/flowerbeds/patio. And a lift and thin won't cut it.

When I left college we were taught to "educate" the client towards the "lift&thin school" and dutifully I managed to persuade a few to have it done. They were almost always underwhelmed by the results far as extra light was concerned. Resulting in either a call back to reduce or driving past a year later to see some other firm had done the job the client had originally asked for.

That beech and many others would support a reasonable reduction repeated every few years, the client would get his light, the tree would be fine, tree surgeons would get some work and the amenity value (presumably the motorists who drive past) would not be affected in the slightest.

[Andy Clark]

Because all this talk disregards the most important factor in the equation.

The happiness or otherwise of the client. In real terms the client is not happy with a lift and thin. They want it smaller so they get some direct and un impeded sun on their lawn/pool/flowerbeds/patio. And a lift and thin won't cut it.

When I left college we were taught to "educate" the client towards the "lift&thin school" and dutifully I managed to persuade a few to have it done. They were almost always underwhelmed by the results far as extra light was concerned. Resulting in either a call back to reduce or driving past a year later to see some other firm had done the job the client had originally asked for.

That beech and many others would support a reasonable reduction repeated every few years, the client would get his light, the tree would be fine, tree surgeons would get some work and the amenity value (presumably the motorists who drive past) would not be affected in the slightest.

 

 

Right.... but your initial statement was that

Thinning and lifting trees as a solution to shade is bogus college taught nonsense.

.

 

And I'm struggling to see how your post above quantifies and backs up that statement.

 

 

Anyhoo...

 

Light travels in straight lines - Hence how we have shadows. Making the tree smaller only makes the shadow smaller - for a short space of time, until the tree grows back.

 

Thinning trees doesn't make the shadow smaller, but less "dark", as it allows more light (travelling in straight lines) to pass through the canopy - with the longer lasting effect of minimising the re-active regrowth, meaning the effect of the shadow being less dark, lasts longer.

 

Considering the OP was raising the issue of longer term maintenance/management obligations, the "happiness" of the client is a subjective issue, depending on which "bit" of their requirement makes them the happiest.

[Mick Dempsey]

You struggle to understand that if something is blocking the light ie the top section of a tree, by removing that thing you will have more light? Seems a simple enough concept to grasp.

The inner canopy of thinned trees does grow back you know, with a vengeance in certain species.

So any way you solution is not so much more light as "less dark"

Edited May 29, 2015 by Mick Dempsey

[Andy Clark]

You struggle to understand that if something is blocking the light ie the top section of a tree, by removing that thing you will have more light? Seems a simple enough concept to grasp.

The inner canopy of thinned trees does grow back you know, with a vengeance in certain species.

So any way you solution is not so much more light as "less dark"

 

 

:confused1:

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

That's been a dozen or so quality posts, made for good reading!

 

👍

[Adam M]

Rubbish, a crown lift on that Beech will DRAMATICALLY increase the light reaching that lawn.

 

My advice to the owner would be move, I will never understand people buying a property with a large, mature, protected tree, if they don't like it

 

 

When people complain about lack of light in northerly aspect rooms (trees immediately behind), crownlifting might not actually increase light levels one bit but the fact that they can see the sky sorts them right out, mush.