daltontrees

It's an open question. Is it the planning authority's job to assess risk and vitality during the application process?

Possibly an exaggeration to say it's 'very dangerous'. The qualifications don't indicate any knowledge beyond the practical. So maybe he/she's interested in securing the job to remove the tree. Could be wrong, though, if root plate decay was seen that we can't see. But because it is TPO'd, you need to justify it to the Council. It doesn't look bad enough to be done under the 'dangerous' exemption, so an application would be required to allow removal. Based on what I have seen the Council might well come back and say that removal is excessive and that a reduction would do to stabilise it. It's then a case of trying to persuade that a removal and replanting will be the best thing in the long run, for the amenity of the area. You could get your tree surgeon to write a report justifying removal for teh TPO application but his qualifications aren't impressive and if you have to pay for the report I suggest you get someone with a bit of credentials behind them. If the guy's offering the report for nothing (there's no such thing as free, and don't ask until you've got a fixed price written quote for the removal), funnily enough I'd be almost as worried.

Definitely Walnut.

Don't bother with a bowsaw, the hardpoint silkys are absolutely superb, the Zubat as Steve says is good, It cuts mostly on the pull and the curved blade is made for the job.

It is a thing of beauty, better than any bowsaw.

The alternative take on that is to give the Council what it asks for to avoid prosecution and a fine.

I just re-read 'Body Language... about the Axiom, and interestingly it does not claim tha tthe Axiom applies to trees. It says that it is effectively axiomatic that trees are self-optimising, putting on neither too much nor too little strength innhteir every part. That I accept, subject to the proviso (as the book also says) that trees cannot lose excess material that later isn't needed, and can thus have excess material too. I think that the axiom of uniform stress is a good thought experiment, a good way of helping to understand the biomechanics of trees. But it can't be stated of trees. Nor does the book say it can. As such, the rather overblown and self-congratulatory article by Duncan Slater et al a few years ago in the Journal needn't have bothered trying to debunk it. Like taking candy from babies, it systmatically cited and showed numerous examples of how trees do not carry stress uniformly. Yes, it hought. And...? It remains, as far as I am concerned, a useful teaching tool that forces thought about why trees are the way they are. But it might be more useful to write of the principle of uniform stress and the axiom of self-optimisation. Axiom is a brave word in any debate, though. Someone will always say that the axiom is not self-evident. That's OK, because they are part of scientific and mathematical reasoning and should be disposable or testable to destruction.

I think the main purpose of 'Body Language.." is prediction of failure (either breakage or windthrow) by predominantly visual cues. But the back section has a good grounding in VTA (Visual Tree Assessment) in the field. I think for anyone wanting a starting point for assessing trees for risk before climbing it's maybe a bit limited, since trees generally fail in the conditions you wouldn't want to be climbing them in or are really really obviously goosed, but it could still be relevant to detecting defects that might determine for example whether or not to shockload during rigging or to expect conventional hinge strength when doing felling cuts. It's a lovely book anyway. A lite intro to biomechanics. The source of the occasionally maligned 'Axiom of Uniform Stress'. The source of the myth of the 0.3 t/R ratio. The launch of terms like the 'Chinese moustache' (bet we're not allowed to say that any more), 'hazard beam', 'minimal lever arm', 'shell buckling' and more. Who wouldn't want a copy?

Yes 'appropriate ... species' allows for different species, and the only chalenge would be not to plant, then get a Tree Replacement Notice served on you then appeal it. Inspectors and Reporters should not interfere with Council disctretion on trivia like species unless the requirement is outlandish. That's my experience anyway. 'At the same place' similarly allows latitude, I think it should be restricted to positions that would provide a similar degeree of amenity to the area. For example, removing one in the back garden, it would be too much to expect a replacement to be in the front garden. A client once took down trees and the Forestry Commission came out and measured the stumps then applied some mensuration stem flare and taper formula to calculate an equivalent DBH. They were pretty detemined. Baut as you say in this case it would be a bust due to pre-removal evidence.

There is. S 213 of the T&CPA 1990. " (1) If any tree to which section 211 applies— (a) is removed, uprooted or destroyed in contravention of that section; or (b) is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies at a prescribed time,* it shall be the duty of the owner of the land to plant another tree of an appropriate size and species at the same place as soon as he reasonably can.

It's Arbtalk, where no-one is reticent about debating stuff pending evidence. So you were right before AND after the typo. 😀

Silver birch for me, outside chance of river birch.

Likely to very likely.

There's no rule. I expect the minimum dig depth will be the depth required for the road crossing and all its base, sub base and kerb foundations. A typical footway is about 210mm deep, whereas a driveway built to adoptable standards is more like 360mm. If you're unlucky this could necessitate services being buried deeper. It's not the size of roots that should matter, it's the rooting volume that will be removed or steriliseds or disconnected by the severing of larger roots.

That's a good quality rant but I don't accept the logic of this one statement. If a tree has a major root severed or killed it can and almost certanlly will admit pathogens, and they don't give up. So it might be 10 or 20 years before the true cost to the tree manifests itself. I have seen my fair share of street trees lost to Kretzschmaria, and it is usually possible to see that the infection is due to root damage in one or more sectors. The real risk is deferred, disconnecting it from the 'me, now' of modern Britain. Arbtalkers love slagging off Councils (who sometimes deserve it, but not always). But we should all remember that not only is the Council the statutory protector of trees, it owns the road and footway and the tree. Come onto my land and damage the roots of my trees and I'll soon stop you. As I recall (and I can't be bothered checking) the original whinge in this thread was that the applicant was being obliged to investigate root distribution rather than being prevented from doing a dropped kerb, full stop. So on that count I agree totally, present fact-based evidence that roots won't be adversely affected, or park your car somewhere else. Yes I remember now, the real real whinge was that others got away with it, but not the applicant.

My recommedation would be that not checking with your insurers before removing the tree is NOT a good idea. If there are shrinkable clays and subsidence has happened in the past and has been repaired but not underpinned, removing the tree will casue heave and a whole new set of damage. Check with your insurers. You can't sue Arbtalk.

I enrolled on a chainsaw course just to get me started, met a guy on the course who was in the same situation, we started a busines stogether and made it up as we went along. What was hard was identifying and sticking to good standards while all around I saw cowboys and chancers with no qualifications, insurance, PPE or elementary knowledge of trees devastating peoples trees in my patch and putting themselves, their subbies and the public at risk. The solid foundation we worked from was the NPTC/LANTRA courses and qualifications and the lore gleaned from some good instructors. I was and am appalled at the almost complete absence of reliable information and policing of standards, H&S, law etc. It was all made easier by deciding to always do things right in the hope that reputation then income would follow. It did, eventually.

Answering now because I said I would but didn't get round to it. The answer's the answer no matter who asked the question or why. It is easy to get distracted by speculating about an OP's motives. Call me an anorak, but I'm really only interested in learning and disseminating knowledge. As is often the case when a question is asked on Arbtalk I am dismayed if I don't know the answer and I feel the professional need to go off immediately and research it properly. Then I know, and I think why not share that with others? I am tortured soul.

I was stuck in an office job I hated, drowning in management nonsense. Mid 40s I baled out, decided to satisfy a life-long urge to be involved with trees, made a deliberate decision to work as a contractor for 5 years to learn the business as a route to cosultancy. And by and large that's how it went. Started arb business, went into business with someone. WIthin 5 years , knocking on VAT registration but already had done the professional exams. Business partner emigrated, I was turning into a manager again so I wound down the contracting business and now am run off my feet purely on cosusltancy referrals. Nirvana, getting paid to look at trees. It hink this counts in the poll as 'other'

What a bizare thread. There is a long tradition on Arbtalk of not actually answering the question, at least not deliberately or directly. So for what it's worth I will try. There is no formal process to apply for the removal of a TPO. The Council has power to revoke TPO's. In England (unlike in the more civilised northern provinces) there is no obligation to review existing TPOs either, so it's probably not going to happen unless instigated by a tree owner. The owner can ask. The Council may not be arsed about it, but may consider it. The criterion would have to be the same as why it was made in the first place, namely (and again this is only in the uncivilised southern parts of the UK) for the amenity of the area. The area character or the visibility of the trees may have changed considerably since the Order was made, so there may be gounds for revoking the Order. But I expect any Council faced with a request to revoke an Order would probably presume that it's because the owner wants to remove it and expects that an application for consent to do so would be refused. I act for a planning authority sometimes and they are reviewing their Orders cyclically. Another planning authority I have dealings with have an Order which is 65 years old and the trees named in it aren't even there any more, but the Order subsists. One can only ask for revokation or hope for a cyclical review, but don't expect anything...

A growth deformity. Perhaps it helps the tree in some way to defend agaisnt damage, but if anything it seems to suit the Cryptococcus by creating a more sheltered substrate.

If the construction is all finished then in principle the conditions relating to retention and protection of trees has no further effect and it can be dealt with like any other dead tree, but it would make sense to check the planning conditions an also (before removal) take notes and photos that will be able to show later that it died naturally rather than because of breach of planning conditions. It can do no harm to let the planning authority know too. They'll probably be too shocked that somebody is being open with them to do anything. That said, there is in effect no penalty for breaching tree protection conditions.

That's a bit reckless! There's no such thing as a standard planning decision. Besides, this question relates to an existing tree which it has been decided must be retained and possibly protected. It wouldn't come within the remit of a landscaping plan or condition. Would you honestly advise a client or customer who doesn't want any comeback that "It all can be safely ignored as utter nonsense"?

I don't have a monopoly on being right. An apprehension about being wrong causes me to double-check things before committing to advice. But I do like helping people (and their contractors) understand their rights and obligations. It's good for society, and we sure as hell need a better society. For sure we live in a society where money can buy you justice or even help you avoid it. But in the situation of using the statutory exemptions it need cost nothing. Being pedantic (I always am) the right reminology is this - Basic level. 'Encroachment' is roots or branches crossing into another's property. It isn't the same as 'nuisance'. The next level up is 'nuisance' when the encroachment is preventing somebody making use of their own property. It may not be serious enough for a court to act on it, if so it is not 'actionable nuisance'. There is a right to self-abatement, without notice and generally without consequence. Next level up is 'actionable nuisance' which is so severe that a court would order the tree owner to abate it or make the tree owner pay back the cost of the neighbour dealing with it. It may or may not include an injunction/interdict preventing the tree owner from letting it happen again. In the CA/TPO context (and I think this is a really useful principle to understand) if exemptions are available they should be used; applying to the Council is NOT an appropriate alternative. Councils should reject applications or notifications that seek approval to use powers that are already available to people. In the 'nuisance' context it has nothing to do with how urgent it is (but tree nuisance is rarely urgent). Decide if it's a nuisance, or about to become it. If it is, deal with it. If it isn't, notify or apply. Time is not a factor. The 'risk' exemption is different. If it is 'urgently necessary to remove an immediate risk of serious harm', deal with it. If it's not (e.g. less urgent, less serious, alternative risk measures are available), notify or apply. I hope that helps. To refere back to earlier posts by me, the law is still slightly unclear on whther the 'nuisance' exemption is only for 'actionable nuisance'. But, teh 'revention' option appears to answer that question i.e. it doesn't need to be that serious for the exemption to be useable. The super-summary is that time is only a factor upon deciding if the risk is 'immediate'. And, I might be wrong. I hope not.

It wouldn't be sidestepping compliance if the law says it would be allowed. It wouldn't be trumping established regulation, it would be setting aside established misconception and custom and practise. It wouldn't be a legal precedent, because the law is already clear. Think of it this way. Someone's tree encroaches and prevents someone else's use of their land. At common law either party could and should do something about that. Why should the imposition of CA or TPO be allowed to prevent that?