poor TPO work spec

[detritus21]

I've picked up a TPO work spec which to me is rather poor. I'll not say which council other than in the north west. The tree in question is a 18-20m tall horse chestnut. The spec is to reduce to leave a finished height of 6.1m and a crown spread fo 5m plus a 20% thin. The conditions are that the work is done to.british standards. I cannot see how the work is even closely related to British standards and to me contradicts itself. I have tried to discuss it with said council but it is so far fallen on deaf ears. Am I over reacting. I am seriously thinking of declining the works as it has taken a number of years to build a good reputation for good standards of practice. What do you think.

[treesrus]

i've had issues with tree officers insisting that i work to BS, yet have given work to favored contractors which clearly do not follow BS. i don't see how such a large reduction is anything short of butchery, it must be a very special tree or it's blocking someone specials light/view! surely if the tree is a risk, then remove and replace. i would walk away rather than damage my reputation, there's plenty more work out there.

[edwood]

This kind of happening goes on allot in my neck of the woods, i know of a TO who still gives permission to companies who regularly spike prunes and have little to no understanding of what constitutes a pruning cut. It's laughable. Work is work, at the end of the day it depends how busy you are. maybe leave the pictures off your website though if you decide to go ahead

[daltontrees]

I've picked up a TPO work spec which to me is rather poor. I'll not say which council other than in the north west. The tree in question is a 18-20m tall horse chestnut. The spec is to reduce to leave a finished height of 6.1m and a crown spread fo 5m plus a 20% thin. The conditions are that the work is done to.british standards. I cannot see how the work is even closely related to British standards and to me contradicts itself. I have tried to discuss it with said council but it is so far fallen on deaf ears. Am I over reacting. I am seriously thinking of declining the works as it has taken a number of years to build a good reputation for good standards of practice. What do you think.

 

It's possible to split BS3998 into 2 aspects, firstly the extent of reduction, this has been decided and must surely exceed the BS but it's been decided and presumably approved. Secondly the quality of work and standards of work practice, this can be done to BS no matter what the extent of reduction. It's till possible to do a good job of a bad idea.

 

Personally if it was a visible tree (and if it's TPO'd it'd have to be) I'd rather not be seen doing it and getting the blame for someone else's bad idea no matter how well I did the work. Or hire an unmarked truck for the day and wear a mask!

[Pete Mctree]

Is the works indicated what the customer wants? Also, are the works mitigating a potential issue with the tree?

Why not work to the spec & collect your rewards for your hard work. It is how a tree service makes money & pays you your rent & beer tokens at the end of the week

I'd not waste my time & energy on worrying about it. If you put in the application, then choose what spec you want & your approach to the tree work.

[detritus21]

The spec was originally put I by the client. It was altered from a 5m reduction, which in its self is excessive, to a 12m reduction by the TO. It was also stated that it was to reduce back to previous pruning cuts which there are none at 6.1m. The tree is prominent on a roadside and is a key feature within an avenue of trees. It also has minimal structural issues. The reason for reduction is light. I used to be of the its work someone else will do it it will pay the bills but not as much anymore I'd prefer to do work that looks right rather than a mess which has the potential to damage the amenity of a whole area and the value of multiple properties.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

So, what you gonna "thin?"

 

It does seem rather excessive, to say the least, and I would argue that it actually wouldn't be possible to execute the works in accord with BS3998 due to the probable lack of suitable secondary growth points.

 

Cheers..

Paul

[detritus21]

So, what you gonna "thin?"

 

It does seem rather excessive, to say the least, and I would argue that it actually wouldn't be possible to execute the works in accord with BS3998 due to the probable lack of suitable secondary growth points.

 

Cheers..

Paul

 

Exactly my point. There is nothing left to thin and no growth points to prune to. Sadly the councils arb consultant hasn't been king wmeniugh to return my call yet.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

The spec was originally put I by the client. It was altered from a 5m reduction, which in its self is excessive, to a 12m reduction by the TO. It was also stated that it was to reduce back to previous pruning cuts which there are none at 6.1m. The tree is prominent on a roadside and is a key feature within an avenue of trees. It also has minimal structural issues. The reason for reduction is light. I used to be of the its work someone else will do it it will pay the bills but not as much anymore I'd prefer to do work that looks right rather than a mess which has the potential to damage the amenity of a whole area and the value of multiple properties.

 

Seems odd that, just a wild guess but could it be a pen error where 12m should read 1.2m?? Just thinking out loud

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

This kind of happening goes on allot in my neck of the woods, i know of a TO who still gives permission to companies who regularly spike prunes and have little to no understanding of what constitutes a pruning cut. It's laughable. Work is work, at the end of the day it depends how busy you are. maybe leave the pictures off your website though if you decide to go ahead

 

Does the TO give permission to the firm or to the tree owner who then selects the firm? (assuming it's private / domestic)