Andy Clark

I hope it's easier on the eye than the last thread Acer. I do love this subject and read and re-read the progress of the old thread with great interest at the time, but i just couldn't help feel it was needlesly convoluted and pointlessly trying to achieve the impossible simply for the sake of the challenge and with no real goal in sight - and thus ended up loosing the will to live. Lol

Best of luck this time though.

Yes thanks. The CAS certainly isn't the arbiter of which system is better, but it's reason for preferring TRAQ to QTRA is some sort of endorsement of how imprecise the courts allow systems to be. Any truly unfit-for-purpose method of assessing and managing risk woud I expect be discovered by the courts. Judges are under quite a bit opf pressure (as one sees from written appeal decisions) to scrutinise methods and expertise.

Not really sure it is either intended or should be taken as an endorsement of the courts opinion of one methodology over another.

CAS, politically (and I hate that word in this industry) has always had closer ties with the ISA and the ISA way - it just goes back to their roots and those peeps that formed that particular Association. Take their use of CTLA over Helliwell or CAVAT for example. Doesn't mean or even imply that one system is "better" or "worse" than the other, just that it's their own preference for which system most suitably fits their particular business model.

By the flip side, does the AA's preference of Helliwell over CTLA and/or CAVAT mean that the AA are saying Helliwell is "better" and CTLA/CAVAT is "worse"?

I don't really see that it does.

It "sort of" depends on which bit of the Govt owns the land and for what reason the TPO is being served.

In all cases, PPGuidance advises that the LA should consult with the relevant body prior to serving the TPO.

In which case, if the LA have followed the guidance properly, all the niggles and/or disputes should have been sorted out prior to the TPO even being served.

Hope that helps?

I can't state definitively whether you are right or wrong on this. But I can say that I personally disagree very strongly that it's 'no real biggie'. Judges don't give a damn about acronyms, points, systems, but they are there specifically to adjudicate on duties of care and reasonable behaviour between members of society. They are there to imagine what the ordinary man should or shouldn't have done. and that includes whether a professional with a duty of care to a tree-owning client has covered his client's arse or his own. Preferably with something more convincing than a few microns of latex...

Hi Jules,

Apologies, I thought I was being clear that my comment regarding it being "no biggie" was in relation to CAS's choice of tree RA methodology, not the courts.

100% agree with regards to the Courts - which is why I posted that Judges only even look at these methodologies as evidential demonstration that a system had been used.

Hopefully that's clearer.

I had a huge tree growing outside my house, i've called these guys which helped me hugely.

 

Tree Surgery Birmingham

Just opened the Web link and funilly it's for a company called absolute tree solutions...... same as the OP's profile name.

Fake customer in order to achieve free advertising?

I think the important point that seems to me to have been overlooked within this emerging debate, is that all of these methodologies, systems, call them what you will, are simply tools in order to achieve a means to an end. Nothing more. (With PTI being training in order to use those tools in practice)

Somebody may choose to use Dewalt branded screwdrivers another may prefer Draper, or Stanley...... they all do the same job, just provide a different means in order to achieve that job.

Remember that in terms of tree risk assessment, it stems pretty much from the HSE sim...... which intimates that a practical and effective tree management process should echo the principles within the management of health and safety at work regs. i.e, carried out on a risk assessment basis.

In terms of the Courts, the only reason that a judge will even take any of these systems into account, is as demonstratable evidence that the "job" was carried out correctly - the "job" being that a tree has been appropriately managed based on it's level of risk.

As long as that box is ticked, and the defendant can show proactively that they have complied with the risk assessment process, it doesn't really matter if the tree was evaluated using THREATS, TRAQ, QTRA, or any other peer reviewed methodology.

So if CAS want to lean towards TRAQ as opposed to QTRA, to be frank, it's no real biggie. Certainly doesn't imply that one system is "better" or "worse" than the other.

Nope, none what so ever.

Trees generally grow in proportion, and will have a root system that corresponds with their crown. Reducing the crown, even by minor removal via crown lift, does not automatically reduce the root system - it just means less crown volume for the same root system. (Which is why tree generally tend to grow back like buggery when you give them a good wallop.)

Blimey prices have come down a lot then, sounds a great deal. I use OTISS and a sony xperia tablet, sold as waterproof but I use it in a case anyway. I wouldn't get carried away with gps performance figures, if you use aerials as base mapping you can correct easily. Remember the bulk of Trimble and others products are developed for the survey market, which has far higher requirements than we need to produce an accurate tree survey plan.

I'd definitely echo that.

I use the OTISS set up too, and love it. I run it on both my phone (Galaxy Note 4) in an otterbox defender case for general quick "in-out" data capture, and on a Galaxy Tab Pro 8.2" tablet, again with otterbox defender plus the utility strap set-up, for more lengthy surveys.

GPS on the Tab can be sketchy at times, but I always keep the phone open as a wifi hotspot for the Tab, so then get GPS plus 4G - which then does help with accuracy.

Best thing since sliced bread in my opinion, and achieves the same results as big high cost/high end set ups, but with only a fraction of the outlay.....

which is always nice

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?

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..... ???

Very difficult to give an accurate diagnosis with things like this, as there are a lot of factors that would naturally differ between the U.K and U.S.

As has been mentioned already, your best bet would be contact a local ISA Certified Arborist, and get the tree properly assessed up close and personal.

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.

You struggle to understand that if something is blocking the light ie the top section of a tree, by removing that thing you will have more light? Seems a simple enough concept to grasp.

The inner canopy of thinned trees does grow back you know, with a vengeance in certain species.

So any way you solution is not so much more light as "less dark"

:confused1:

Awesome! :thumbup:

They were great boots back in the day. And sooooooo comfy once they'd worn in; like climbing in trainers.

Had 3 or 4 pairs during my apprentice days - I think my last pair I ignored the dreaded sole peel and kept wearing them with just the foam.

Because all this talk disregards the most important factor in the equation.

The happiness or otherwise of the client. In real terms the client is not happy with a lift and thin. They want it smaller so they get some direct and un impeded sun on their lawn/pool/flowerbeds/patio. And a lift and thin won't cut it.

When I left college we were taught to "educate" the client towards the "lift&thin school" and dutifully I managed to persuade a few to have it done. They were almost always underwhelmed by the results far as extra light was concerned. Resulting in either a call back to reduce or driving past a year later to see some other firm had done the job the client had originally asked for.

That beech and many others would support a reasonable reduction repeated every few years, the client would get his light, the tree would be fine, tree surgeons would get some work and the amenity value (presumably the motorists who drive past) would not be affected in the slightest.

Right.... but your initial statement was that

Thinning and lifting trees as a solution to shade is bogus college taught nonsense.

And I'm struggling to see how your post above quantifies and backs up that statement.

Anyhoo...

Light travels in straight lines - Hence how we have shadows. Making the tree smaller only makes the shadow smaller - for a short space of time, until the tree grows back.

Thinning trees doesn't make the shadow smaller, but less "dark", as it allows more light (travelling in straight lines) to pass through the canopy - with the longer lasting effect of minimising the re-active regrowth, meaning the effect of the shadow being less dark, lasts longer.

Considering the OP was raising the issue of longer term maintenance/management obligations, the "happiness" of the client is a subjective issue, depending on which "bit" of their requirement makes them the happiest.

Can anybody recommend some mapping software for plotting individual and small groups of trees for tree reports?

Have a look at OTISS - OTISS | A new approach to Tree Survey and Estate Management software.

Runs on a mobile phone/Tablet, and can plot trees manually or via GPS - with the added benefit of also allowing you to record all the tree data - observations, measurements, recommendations, risk assessment etc.

End result can be used on the standard Open Source maps (goggle street map etc), or be downloaded as a DXF file for manipulation of the point/polygon data onto O/S Master Map with a CAD programme.

Can also upload your own plans as PDF into OTISS and then plot straight onto the PDF.

Best thing sine sliced bread imo. Cheap as chips too. IRO £250 for the app, and then I use Serif Draw Plus as a cheap CAD programme for the DXF manipulation if needed. Serif DP is about 80 quid.

Major commercial benefit as well with the data being stored online, means that you can grant your client access to the data, or even set them up with their own account for as low as £40 - allowing them to then manage their own data going forward.

With them set up on OTISS and you using OTISS, you then often become their first port of call for any repeat work.

Winner!

Hi Andy, "yes indeed" (at the show) and in principle would a cuppa n a natter but in practice, frustratingly, often time n tasks don't allow...but please do call into the AA tent on the off chance.

 

The other thing I find interesting about the whole TPO app/ BS3998 / TPO guidance etc is the document refers to CRs being specified in terms of finished dimensions, e.g. CR to leave a crown dimension of X & Y etc. (ideal for subsequent planning enforcement action if exceeded) BUT very few applications reflect this AND very few LPAs require it.

 

Ah well, at least gives us things to discuss.

 

Best for now..

Paul

Ha haa, very true! And that number of LA's that don't require apps to reflect 3998 probably somewhere equates to the number of TO's that condemned the proposed changes from percentages to metres during the consultation for the 2010 re-work. Hey ho.

After all, the benefit that came with percentages, meant that at least a climber, the reputable ones, could retain the flexibility to work to the trees natural shape/form. The change to metres however ultimately removed that flexibility, often placing the climber in breach of the wording of 3998 now, if they try and stick to natural shape/form rather than strictly observing the measured metre. After all, there are no straight lines in nature.

And you only have to look at the increase in the number of Hat-stand reductions up and down the country to see the knock on effect of that in change in practice.

Not saying that percentages were strictly the right way, but they were certainly less wrong than prescribing reductions to reflect metres. After all, the regs are there to protect amenity - and a tree is most "valuable" in terms of amenity, when it looks most natural. The regs are not there to create a stick (no pun intended) or to make it easier to beat those who breach planning.

Anyway, we digress.....

In my humble opinion it is simply a matter of Law vs industry best practice. In an ideal world best practice should mirror the Law and give guidance on how to adhere to it. But with 3998 certainly, especially in the context of TPO/Con area trees, it doesn't - because the guidance within 3998 does not mirror the spirit of the TPO regs. And industry best practice certainly does not override the Law, nor should it have a higher importance than the Law placed on it.

And again, I'm confident that the principle was mirrored by the TPO regs re-work in 2012. Were the 2012 regs amended to meet 3998? Or should it be/have been 3998 that is/was written moreso to mirror the TPO regs?

Chicken? Egg?

Andy, whilst you are technically correct that the TPO Regs do not make reference to BS3998, and indeed the applicant is not bound to refer to such, nonetheless the planning portal associated guidance (copy attached) states:

Tree work should be carried out to a good standard. LPAs will usually require the work to comply with BS 3998 Recommendations for Tree Work

Hence I would always advise applicants to ensure their applications align with the industry standard document (that said it is frustrating the actual legislation uses terms such as top, lop, uproot )

 

Regards, and hope you're well..

Paul

Hi Paul,

Very well chap, thanks. And likewise.

Totally agree, and i'm sure you're very well aware that almost every consent notice will stipulate that works are not only carried out in accordance with 3998, but equally are carried out by a reputable "tree surgeon".

The point that was made though and the one that I posted in relation too, was regarding the wording of the initial application, not the way in which the works are carried out.

Reduction in height by 5m and lateral spread by 3m is a clear and concise description of the works - works which, if granted, should then be carried out in accordance with 3998. (Correct cuts, cuts to growth points etc.....)

So whilst that description for the purpose of the application may not necessarily align with the strict wording of 3998, it is still in accordance with 3998; in as far that it gives measured amounts of reduction as opposed to good old percentages, and thus would be a totally acceptable description, well within the capacity for any TO to understand the intended works.

You at the show next weekend? Bout time we finally had a coffee and a natter. 👍

Thinning and lifting trees as a solution to shade is bogus college taught nonsense.

Really? Would love you to quantify that statement with evidence to support it. 👍

I have a TPO on a Beech Tree which I am wanting to reduce in size as it causes excessive shading. Please see attached picture.

I am applying to reduce the height by 5m and lateral spread by 3m. Its approximately 15m tall. I've had it 20% thinned about 3 years ago, so a bit of foilage has been removed in the past.

An arboriculturist from the council visited today and said what I was proposing was harmful to the tree. He stated that I would not be able to reduce the height, but would only allow me to crown lift about 2-3 metres from the base (to a suitable pruning point) to allow more light onto our lawn / house.

He ended up saying maybe I wait another 2 years and we see how it looks from that point.

My question is; how big is this tree likely to get? Is there any way I can get it reduced in size? My lawn is already un-even due to the shallow nature of the beech tree root. I'm trying to maintain the tree as best I can and don't want to manage a massive tree if I can avoid it. Any suggestions would be most appreciated.

The RPA is about 8.5m and behind the tree is a main road (where I don't think the roots would spread to).

The tree is about 80-100 years old.

No one seems to have picked up here on the point that the works you have requested will mostly go to make your shading issues WORSE, not better.

Heavily reducing a tree will only serve to stress the tree, making it grow back more vigorously and more dense as the tree naturally tries to compensate for the lost material.

More vigorous growth means you will be back in 3-5 years reducing it again, and more dense growth habit will means you block out more light over the course of a similar time frame.

You make mention that you don't want to have management constraints - the works you describe though will invariably increase the management needs, as you continue to fight a loosing battle against the trees natural defense mechanism to compensate for the works carried out.

Correct works in order to solve the problems you describe, would be a crown thin by 15-20% max, combined with a light crown lift of probably no more than 1m.

This, as has been pointed out already, will allow light to come through the crown, and will not shock the tree to the extent that you end up faced with major regrowth - meaning the tree will sit there quite happily for probably 10+ years before you even need think about any repeat works.

A point to consider in applying for reductions is to use the right terminology in line with BS3998:2010 Tree Work - Recommendations; use Crown Volume Reductions and use the info on page 28 sec. 7.7.2.

Not necessarily.

There is nothing in the TPO regs that dictates that wording of the applied-for works must align with 3998.

The description of works applied-for must simply be clear/concise/unambiguous, in order to leave no room for doubt or confusion about the intended works.

Splitting hairs a bit, I know, but no point jumping through hoops that aren't there. In this context regarding this particular tree, the 5m reduction in height is a fairly clear description of the works, and is simply the case that the works are deemed to be not in the best interest of the tree.

Well thank goodness I haven't missed anything in 5837 to do with poulation densities etc. But still, that tree couldn't foreseeably cause serious harm unless a lunatic jumped into it from a hot air balloon in his underpants.

 

We all get leant on to shift our opinion. But unfortunately anything with a 3 subcategory is according to the BS and the ATF and the NPF worthy of conservation and therefore retention and calling it B instead of A is a bold step. Calling it a C is asking for trouble from the LPA, and won't even help a client advance a development proposal. It would be easier to keep it out of the 3 sub-cat than to move it down through the retention suitability subcategories.

 

According to the ATF definitions, that tree looks either ancient or veteran, or both. Is it providing the sort of scarce deadwood habitats that underlie the whole conservation approach in 5837? if so, that is unshakeable in the National Planning Framework. Calling it a Z5 or a U9 won't get a developer anywhere very far.

 

My answer might be different for Wales or Scotland, but as Arbtalk is Anglocentric I won't elaborate.

Oh totally. I agree 100%. The problem we tend to face though, certainly from my own experience, is that clients generally don't tend to have read any of the NPF, or have even heard of the ATF - they just see a half rotten tree that stands in the way of their development, and often take a lot of convincing to even look at it as something with any degree of value, let alone protect it at the expense of modification to the development.

Most of my 5837 clients have only even had a survey carried out because "the council says I need a tree survey done". They have no idea why one is needed, and have no idea of what it is I'll be surveying.

I have even had several clients previously where I have given sound recomendation for retention of decay/habitat type trees, not necessarily veteran, but the client has disagreed, and just gone off and sourced another surveyor who would appraise them less rigorously (and argued the bill for the work that I'd done).

And with over subscribed/under resourced LA's added to the mix these days, chances of a tree officer attending site to go through the report and check the recs are increasingly slim, meaning an increasing number of 5837 reports are just being taken as gospel and consent granted from a desktop.

So again, whilst we on here may well know what is right/wrong, ultimately we're still a minority in a big wide world where trees are still not given the recognition or reward that they warrant.

Looks 3 to me. A or B depending on ERC. I don't see how the situation should affect that. It's not like a Hawthorn is going to fall over and crush someone. On what basis would it be downgraded because of proximity to populations or existing development?

The situation where the risk adverse-ness of the landowner outweighs the amenity value of the tree.

Don't forget that the majority of the decision making behind tree retention/works etc, equally depends on the brief of the survey.

Put that tree in a high population area then carry out a hazard evaluation survey, your "opinion" of the tree would undoubtedly change and differ from your "opinion" of the tree if it was in the same locale but you were carrying out a 5837 survey?

Why?

Same tree. Same location.

Similarly would your opinion undoubtedly change and be dependant on the size and scale of the development that you were surveying for.

5837 survey that tree in relation to a small scale bungalow extension in a dwelling rear garden, and the tree would be worthy of retention. Put that tree in the middle of a major new-town development where the tree would halt building a significant building, and the tree would be condemned.

I'm paraphrasing here, and yes, I do know the difference between what is right and what is wrong, but the point I try and make is that of human nature, and that you are never, no matter how hard one tries to be impeccable, going to take that out of the equation. Be it your own human nature, or that of the client/decision maker.

Trouble with tree like that on housing estates, or in any other generally populated area come to that, is that they are often never let to get that "bad/good" in the first place.

Dacay + people = bad. Decay + no people = good. With the variable in the equation being the degree of decay vs volume of people (level of liability exposure) and ultimately often being the governor of the degree of "bad-ness/good-ness" that determines when to retain and when to fell.

I think a lot would depend on the context of the site. That tree in that location, yeah, probably A3. Put it in the middle of a housing estate, and i wager it would struggle to even reach a B category.