Giles Hill

Looking at the top picture it looks like you can see the stem against the sky, through a gap in the foliage - it looks like you'd be ok cutting it somewhere around there (the bricks in the wall are 215mm long as a guide) - difficult to tell how high that is from a picture, but it looks 'comfotable' you'd need to judge the proposed height on site. I imagine they'd allow a little leeway on the 200mm - they won't go up there with a tape. I mentioned 5m for a pollard height, but go with whatever suits and looks right and allows the tree to contribute a 'mature green' c appearance of the street. Just another thought, the case for pollarding could be further argued as a proactive way of retaining and managing the tree with Massaria on the increase.

It looks like a reasonable size for a first pollard too - i.e. as opposed to what might be seen as butchering a more mature tree - you'd need to choose a suitable height - 5m or so would be my suggestion and manage the regrowth above that.

Given the lack of space, I think you could make a good case for managing them as pollards. I would concentrate on the positive aspects of this form of management - eg traditional form of urban tree management, will suit the appearance of the tree better (it looks like it's outgrown it's space already) the pollard form will be more attractive than a tree with half its canopy lopped off etc. Also if possible refer to any other pollards locally to show that it's in keeping with the surroundings, or just make the point that pollards are a traditional feature of confined urban spaces. Your client would get the light the LA would keep the tree and you'd get future work.

If it was planted in the spring or summer, then I think it's probably drought stress. It only takes a few days for newly planted trees to go from being healthy looking, to looking like that. The others were planted at the optimum time so they've had a better chance to settle in and can cope better. It'll probably come back next year, but won't grow as fast as the others. You might need to cut the top off that stake BTW, to stop the stem rubbing on it.

If it was planted in the spring or summer, then I think it's probably drought stress. It only takes a few days for newly planted trees to go from being healthy looking, to looking like that. The others were planted at the optimum time so they've had a better chance to settle in and can cope better. It'll probably come back next year, but won't grow as fast as the others. You might need to cut the top off that stake BTW, to stop the stem rubbing on it.

Paul, I know you're experienced with BS5837, I was explaining my thinking rather than teaching you how to suck eggs. The original question was about the point of categorising trees on neighbouring land and that was what I was attempting to refer to. I think it's best to consider the trees on neighbouring land as an integral part of the survey / assessment / proposal and propose protection accordingly. I wouldn't give the neighbour's trees less protection than those within the site and I wouldn't give them more. Regarding damaging the neighbours property - obviously you'd (probably) want to avoid killing or destabilising their tree, but beyond that I would see cutting some roots off in a similar way as cutting off some branches. I'm not saying I'd condone cutting all the roots off on the boundary line - the extent of the encroachment into the RPA would depend on the tree and would need to be justified in a report to which the person who'd written it would be held accountable.

Paul, I know you're experienced with BS5837, I was explaining my thinking rather than teaching you how to suck eggs. The original question was about the point of categorising trees on neighbouring land and that was what I was attempting to refer to. I think it's best to consider the trees on neighbouring land as an integral part of the survey / assessment / proposal and propose protection accordingly. I wouldn't give the neighbour's trees less protection than those within the site and I wouldn't give them more. Regarding damaging the neighbours property - obviously you'd (probably) want to avoid killing or destabilising their tree, but beyond that I would see cutting some roots off in a similar way as cutting off some branches. I'm not saying I'd condone cutting all the roots off on the boundary line - the extent of the encroachment into the RPA would depend on the tree and would need to be justified in a report to which the person who'd written it would be held accountable.

Paul, I know you're experienced with BS5837, I was explaining my thinking rather than teaching you how to suck eggs. The original question was about the point of categorising trees on neighbouring land and that was what I was attempting to refer to. I think it's best to consider the trees on neighbouring land as an integral part of the survey / assessment / proposal and propose protection accordingly. I wouldn't give the neighbour's trees less protection than those within the site and I wouldn't give them more. Regarding damaging the neighbours property - obviously you'd (probably) want to avoid killing or destabilising their tree, but beyond that I would see cutting some roots off in a similar way as cutting off some branches. I'm not saying I'd condone cutting all the roots off on the boundary line - the extent of the encroachment into the RPA would depend on the tree and would need to be justified in a report to which the person who'd written it would be held accountable.

It would depend... You start off with the BS ideal of avoiding the RPA of all retained trees, but if a compromise has to be made then I'd advise that the compromise is made in respect of the 'C' category trees, rather than the higher grades. Obviously you'd need to assess the tree in question to decide how much compromise it'll take, the RPA is basically theoretical, some trees will tolerate a lot more disturbance than others. Notwithstanding this, some 'C' category trees just don't merit working around, with something like a Leyland cypress, that's been topped at 4m the main reason for recording it is so the engineer to can assess it's impact on the foundation designs. Regarding liability, I'd be primarily concerned about the damage that might occur if the tree in question became unstable - i.e. as opposed to worrying about reducing it's life expectancy.

It would depend... You start off with the BS ideal of avoiding the RPA of all retained trees, but if a compromise has to be made then I'd advise that the compromise is made in respect of the 'C' category trees, rather than the higher grades. Obviously you'd need to assess the tree in question to decide how much compromise it'll take, the RPA is basically theoretical, some trees will tolerate a lot more disturbance than others. Notwithstanding this, some 'C' category trees just don't merit working around, with something like a Leyland cypress, that's been topped at 4m the main reason for recording it is so the engineer to can assess it's impact on the foundation designs. Regarding liability, I'd be primarily concerned about the damage that might occur if the tree in question became unstable - i.e. as opposed to worrying about reducing it's life expectancy.

It would depend... You start off with the BS ideal of avoiding the RPA of all retained trees, but if a compromise has to be made then I'd advise that the compromise is made in respect of the 'C' category trees, rather than the higher grades. Obviously you'd need to assess the tree in question to decide how much compromise it'll take, the RPA is basically theoretical, some trees will tolerate a lot more disturbance than others. Notwithstanding this, some 'C' category trees just don't merit working around, with something like a Leyland cypress, that's been topped at 4m the main reason for recording it is so the engineer to can assess it's impact on the foundation designs. Regarding liability, I'd be primarily concerned about the damage that might occur if the tree in question became unstable - i.e. as opposed to worrying about reducing it's life expectancy.

The main reason for categorising trees on neighbouring land is to identify constraints so that you can inform the design process; some trees are worth working around, others aren't. When space is tight, it might be best to compromise the RPA of 'C' category tree if this allows you to provide more space around an 'A' category tree. Another reason for categorising neighbour's trees is to provide some baseline info for the arb impact assessment. eg the impact might be considered to be low if the trees affected are of no merit or vice versa. It doesn't matter too much if the neighbour likes the tree or not, the categorisation needs to be objective.

The main reason for categorising trees on neighbouring land is to identify constraints so that you can inform the design process; some trees are worth working around, others aren't. When space is tight, it might be best to compromise the RPA of 'C' category tree if this allows you to provide more space around an 'A' category tree. Another reason for categorising neighbour's trees is to provide some baseline info for the arb impact assessment. eg the impact might be considered to be low if the trees affected are of no merit or vice versa. It doesn't matter too much if the neighbour likes the tree or not, the categorisation needs to be objective.

Lets hope the Badgers are familiar with BS5837.

Have you looked at Gleditsia?