TPO proposed reduction works to Beech Tree

[MattyF]

Great post

 

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

 

 

Never had problems getting permission for reductions as long as it's sensible. 5 meters is not sensible or sensitive on a TPOed mature beech tree.

[Mick Dempsey]

No, and I never said that, there are many councils now that won't sanction any reduction purely because a HO wants more light.

[Andrew Gale]

A point to consider in applying for reductions is to use the right terminology in line with BS3998:2010 Tree Work - Recommendations; use Crown Volume Reductions and use the info on page 28 sec. 7.7.2.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

A point to consider in applying for reductions is to use the right terminology in line with BS3998:2010 Tree Work - Recommendations; use Crown Volume Reductions and use the info on page 28 sec. 7.7.2.

 

...and also to ensure, ideally, your 'reasons' for the works align with the 'Management Objectives' in Table B1...and perhaps cite such.

 

Cheers

Paul

 

PS Hope you're well Andrew.

[Andy Clark]

A point to consider in applying for reductions is to use the right terminology in line with BS3998:2010 Tree Work - Recommendations; use Crown Volume Reductions and use the info on page 28 sec. 7.7.2.

 

Not necessarily.

 

There is nothing in the TPO regs that dictates that wording of the applied-for works must align with 3998.

 

The description of works applied-for must simply be clear/concise/unambiguous, in order to leave no room for doubt or confusion about the intended works.

 

Splitting hairs a bit, I know, but no point jumping through hoops that aren't there. In this context regarding this particular tree, the 5m reduction in height is a fairly clear description of the works, and is simply the case that the works are deemed to be not in the best interest of the tree.

[Andy Clark]

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.

 

No one seems to have picked up here on the point that the works you have requested will mostly go to make your shading issues WORSE, not better.

 

Heavily reducing a tree will only serve to stress the tree, making it grow back more vigorously and more dense as the tree naturally tries to compensate for the lost material.

 

More vigorous growth means you will be back in 3-5 years reducing it again, and more dense growth habit will means you block out more light over the course of a similar time frame.

 

You make mention that you don't want to have management constraints - the works you describe though will invariably increase the management needs, as you continue to fight a loosing battle against the trees natural defense mechanism to compensate for the works carried out.

 

Correct works in order to solve the problems you describe, would be a crown thin by 15-20% max, combined with a light crown lift of probably no more than 1m.

 

This, as has been pointed out already, will allow light to come through the crown, and will not shock the tree to the extent that you end up faced with major regrowth - meaning the tree will sit there quite happily for probably 10+ years before you even need think about any repeat works.

[Mick Dempsey]

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

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

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

guidance_note-works_to_trees.pdf

[skyhuck]

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

 

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

[Andy Clark]

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

 

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