TPO proposed reduction works to Beech Tree

[Drayton tree care]

I would agree with a lot of these comments. Reduction would cause a lot of reactive growth next year and have the reverse effect in terms of allowing light in years to come. Maybe another thin if feasible if not go for the crown lift.

[Mick Dempsey]

That's what I tell my wife when she asks me to cut the lawn or hedge.

"Don't you realise darling that'll cause reactive growth"

[skyhuck]

That's what I tell my wife when she asks me to cut the lawn or hedge.

"Don't you realise darling that'll cause reactive growth"

 

Yes, but with a lawn or hedge you want thicker denser growth, do you really not get this???????

[Mick Dempsey]

It was the stating of the obvious: ie if you trim that tree it will regrow (or produce reactive growth if you want to use arb speak) well of course it will! then in a few more years trim it again so the light can reach the house/pool/flowerbeds. If the regrowth is thick as it gets with certain species, then thin it as well.

It's tree management....do you not get it?????!!!!!! :confused1::confused1:(See how annoying it is when people do that woodpecker on a keyboard stuff)

[Andy Clark]

It was the stating of the obvious: ie if you trim that tree it will regrow (or produce reactive growth if you want to use arb speak) well of course it will! then in a few more years trim it again so the light can reach the house/pool/flowerbeds. If the regrowth is thick as it gets with certain species, then thin it as well.

It's tree management....do you not get it?????!!!!!! :confused1::confused1:(See how annoying it is when people do that woodpecker on a keyboard stuff)

 

The bit you don't seem to realise though, regarding your method as being "tree management", is that you are giving an example of BAD management practice.

 

By carrying out work that you know will succumb the tree owner to an INCREASE in the need to regularly prune the tree, you are going against the OP's original post - which asked for advise based on MINIMISING the need for ongoing manangement, not INCREASING it.

 

Your method is great for creating more repeat work for a contractor, but goes very little way to solving the OP's problem.

[Mick Dempsey]

The bit you don't seem to realise though, regarding your method as being "tree management", is that you are giving an example of BAD management practice.

 

By carrying out work that you know will succumb the tree owner to an INCREASE in the need to regularly prune the tree, you are going against the OP's original post - which asked for advise based on MINIMISING the need for ongoing manangement, not INCREASING it.

 

Your method is great for creating more repeat work for a contractor, but goes very little way to solving the OP's problem.

 

 

Take a moment and re read the original post. (You know, the actual words in it)

He want to reduce the size of the tree because of excessive shading, he doesn't want to manage a massive tree if he can avoid it, meaning he doesn't want it to get any bigger, it's already too big. He nowhere says he wants to minimize ongoing management.

Your tree management seems to be do nothing (ie a thin and lift) allow a beech in a small garden to achieve gargantuan proportions and tell the homeowner he'll have to lump it mate.

[C.J]

Take a moment and re read the original post. (You know, the actual words in it)

He want to reduce the size of the tree because of excessive shading, he doesn't want to manage a massive tree if he can avoid it, meaning he doesn't want it to get any bigger, it's already too big. He nowhere says he wants to minimize ongoing management.

Your tree management seems to be do nothing (ie a thin and lift) allow a beech in a small garden to achieve gargantuan proportions and tell the homeowner he'll have to lump it mate.

 

And if you read the O.P's other post - they want an extension,they don't want a tree.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

And if you read the O.P's other post - they want an extension,they don't want a tree.

 

 

Unless I'm still addled, there isn't an "OP's other post."

 

The only mention of an "extension" appears, since there is no mention of it from the OP, to be an assumption in post 3.

 

It's been a good insight into differing view points, the technical and legislative position juxtaposed with the reality of living with trees in the urban environment, the (perceived) householder's desire compared to the "doing" position of the contractor and the "in theory" or "ideal world" position of the TO/LA.

 

The biggest giggle (often the way) is that the OP threw the hand grenade and has since retired to watch the fireworks!

[Mick Dempsey]

http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/trees-law/85740-arboricultural-advice-tpo-tree-near-proposed-extension.html#post1272536

Here's the thread, where does it say he wants rid?

Edited May 30, 2015 by Mick Dempsey

[Andy Clark]

http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/trees-law/85740-arboricultural-advice-tpo-tree-near-proposed-extension.html#post1272536

Here's the thread, where does it say he wants rid?

 

But the other post has little bearing on the context of this post..... which is all about how to best minimising the shading from the tree whilst best minimising any ongoing management obligations.

 

So your point is..... ???