daltontrees

We do not have enough information to answer the questions. Where is this? Are there shrinkable clays and a peristent soil moisture deficit? Are the foundations designed appropriately according to NHBC guidelines? Would removal of the tree(s) cause heave in your own property? What species of tree, what distance, what lifestage? At some point you ought to pass this request to your own insurers.

I'm not up in the English Regs, they are different from ours. I mentioned them to show that although there are situations where a report is specificaly required it merely implies that in other situations a report isn't. Anyway, the question is still open, why force a TPO on people then force them to spend money justifying a (quite rightly) free application. The 'you should have thought of that before you bought the house' argument is fairly repulsive, and probably wrong at law. Permissions (consents) run with the land, what would the same reporter do about an appeal for the same tree works by a seller who was unable to sell because of the tree? It's a rhetorical question. 'You should have thought of that before you let your tree grow to bigger than a sapling'?

Not worth saving in the long run, and because of shading any replacement tree in the same position will struggle for light. Because there 's a TPO any work needs to be justified and approved but only a zealous official would be looking for it to be reduced to prolong its life. My reason for saying this is that if it was reduced it might not even be visible from any public place, and that is the acid test. I'd apply to remove and replace with a shade tolerant species, emphasising that the long term is best served by this option.

I reckon if you put a winch on that at midheight and pulled you'd uproot it before the stem buckled.

Playing devil's advcate, there a re 2 extreme views. One says that TPOs are a real burden on private owners already, that's one reason why applications are fee-free, so why shouldn't the onwer just state reasons for the application and let the planning authority assess and decide? The other says that the applicant should prove the need for the work, as it's depriving the neighbourhood of tree amenity. A fee free application suddenly costs £250 for a supprting report , but that's life! In a fair world the first argument should prevail but in the real world some councils are insisting that every TPO application should be accompanied by a supporting report, which seems rather unfair. The TPO Regulations (in England anyway) say that a report is needed to support applications based on subsidence, but no other circumstances specifically require a report. This would tend to support the first view, that if justification (rather than just reasons) are needed for applications under other rationale like daylighting, risk etc. it should be the panners that justify refusal. The Regulations are different in Scotland, and I would put that down to geology, ultimately.

Defo sycamore.

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'