TPO proposed reduction works to Beech Tree

[C.J]

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!

 

 

When I first read this post there were no replies.

 

I noticed the O.P had only made 4 posts and I was curious to know what they were about.

 

It would appear that Paul Barton (post 3) also read the O.P's other post about their extension application.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

When I first read this post there were no replies.

 

I noticed the O.P had only made 4 posts and I was curious to know what they were about.

 

It would appear that Paul Barton (post 3) also read the O.P's other post about their extension application.

 

 

Gotcha! Didn't realise there was a second parallel thread! Now it makes sense where the "extension" angle came from! 👍

[Andy Clark]

Gotcha! Didn't realise there was a second parallel thread! Now it makes sense where the "extension" angle came from! 👍

 

Is it Parallel though?

 

I was under the impression that the other thread was regarding the requirement for a 5837 survey if the development would not impede on the trees RPA..... with that thread ultimately concluding with the point raised that the tree could be retained but would shade the new extension.

 

Surely this thread is asking a different question, albeit in relation to the same tree, based on retaining the tree and thus seeking advice on minimising shading whilst equally minimising ongoing management obligations?

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Possibly parallel, maybe tandem?

[intamixx]

I just came back after a week away and have read the posts.

Thanks for all the views and perspectives you have given, its been a very interesting read!

 

I can see sense in the points raised, like "trimming forces it to grow back more agressively" and "less is more". But looks like a 2m crown lift is the only permissable work at this point and for the foreseeable future..

The council have replied to me when I asked for a 2m crown reduction and crown lift of 2m;.

 

"I would not want to see the tree canopy reduced overall at this time, nor would I agree now to permit it in a couple of years time as there are no concerns with the health or structural stability of the tree that would justify the work. It is unlikely – unless the condition of the tree changes; that we would agree to a reduction of the tree at a later date due to the detriment this would have on the health and vitality of the tree.

I can write a consent letter for the revised work or issue a refusal letter for your initial tree works application which you can appeal through the Planning Inspectorate if you wish to do so."

 

Yes I am looking to retain the tree, but just looking to manage it better long term. My first post a few months ago was about a tree survey report for a propsed extension and whether I absolutely needed to have a report done.

 

In the meantime, I will try to find out a bit more about the TPO itself.

Edited June 9, 2015 by intamixx
detail