This is getting school ground.
I too want to see pollarding in the uk rather than mutilated trees. These should have been taken down an replaced with maple which then should have been allowed to grow then made into street pollards, if the size of the original trees was a problem to the uni
Let's go back to the beginning and not try to defend topping
Why was the work carried out ?
Because the trees were inspected by a consultant who found extensive rot pockets and decay.
Why would he recommend reducing back to previous ?
Because there was a risk of branch failure due to rot pockets and decay.
what do you think caused the rot pockets and decay and why do you think the trees at the opposite side of the street do not have rot pocket or decay ?
Because these trees had been topped in the past and the opposite side of the street haven,t. The rot pockets have formed at the topping cut sites.
Why are the trees on the other side of the road still perfectly healthy and probably only require routine deadwooding and maintainance?
Because they haven,t been topped in the past.
The only reason I have brought pollarding into the conversation is because it was suggested that these trees have been pollarded....they haven't, they,ve been topped......my argument is there's a big difference.
I couldn't give a toss if people go round topping every tree they come across really, just don't try and pass it off as pollarding, it isn,t.
The good thing is now with all the litigation is that every branch failure that involves serious injury or death is investigated. So hopefully in future bad pruning practice will come back and bite a few asses, people may be walking off with cheques to pay there mortgages, but they can't walk away from their liabilities
Here,s to litigation