AA Teccie (Paul)

Hmmm, probably not, all things considered and given you've said it appears with reasonable vitality - if it was declining then maybe (but, how practical is it to do so in reality.) Watch and enjoy.

I think that "someone with more knowledge" should actually go and visit the tree, i.e. tree inspector / arb consultant, and make a recommendation (likely not favourable for the tree I would suggest )

see 'DaltonTrees' reply above and, in principle, an application for CL works (for justifiable reasons, as you've indicated, provided correctly specified) is unlikely to be refused I would suggest. Hence the proposed TPO is simply ensuring retention of the trees long term (perhaps because of change of land use to some degree = deemed 'expedient'.) Good luck with it all. Paul

Hi, a technicality - you can't generally appeal a TPO but you can submit an objection to the Council (LPA) within 28 days (I think) - you may wish to consider doing so "on principle" if you disagree the TPO is necessary ("expedient".) Potentially, thereafter, and assuming they confirm the TPO, if you apply to CL the trees and they refuse an appeal (against the decision) can then be lodged and, possibly, your original objection may be considered ("MAY be" but may not.) As Steve says, CL works are usually relatively small-scale and provided specified correctly, and accurately, when you make the application, should hopefully be consented. ATB Paul

Thank you Jules, and technically you are correct (my apologies) however my reply was 'in context' with the OP relating to works by the LA ('my interpretation') and taking into account the guidance (as below - first bullet point):

Apologies for my delay in replying here: If you're going to reduce the crown, and thereby reduce sail area and loading, and maintain it (reduced) I don't think rigid bracing is required - if the intention was to allow growth to continue then yes, brace it. Correspondingly there doesn't appear to be any...'separation', i.e. the union seems to be okay - I wished I knew Ginkgo better as a species to feel more confident in my views here but again, if the crown is reduced, and maintained ('reduced') it shouldn't be an issue I wouldn't have thought.

Just a few thoughts (not sure they'll help tho ) - the structural form of the tree 'is, what it is" and can't be changed, what it supports however can be.. (don't think I'd consider bracing the stem) - don't know Ginkgo well enough to predict failure likelihoods but if it was N. Maple I'd fell it and if it was Beech I'd keep and monitor (be really useful to get a view here - my inclin is somewhere in between the two) - would a phased reduction to a pollard(?) be an option, i.e. long-term reduction of the sail and maintenance of such (depends how committed the owners are to ongoing management) - something of an aside, is there any possibility of direct-damage (lifting / distortion) to the stone wall...probably not, as looks substantial, but if its a 'listed wall', i.e. Conservation Area, it may factor in the proposals. Pros n Cons...owners like likely influence and make the decision ultimately. ATB

Difficult to say, and probably a multi-factor thing - the epicormic is "last gasp" I would suggest. Read more here: https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/fthr/pest-and-disease-resources/oak-decline/oak-decline-dieback-the-facts/ and AAMOI see https://www.actionoak.org/ - set up in part because of the decline in Oak tree condition nationally.

...and record what you did / covered, when and to whom.

Firstly I quite agree with the comments above - its great to see realisation that trees have roots and to excavate around them so carefully. Secondly, given the age and size of the tree, I wouldn't expect any significant future incremental root growth which may cause footpath movement - hence, ideally I'd suggest a layer of sharp-sand (poss a geo-text membrane first) over the roots to protect them / their bark and, ideally ideally, dependent on levels and space, a slight 'ramping over' if necessary. Good luck and 'thanks for posting' allowing "best practice" to be discussed. ATB Paul

I quite agree with your observations, including some that appear unaffected (usually a little secluded from the general Ash populous - one I recall as having to remind myself it's an Ash and that's what 'healthy Ash trees look like', albeit mid-aged - the tree, I have a few more rings!) Re - "trigger happy'ness", perhaps if the tree is inaccessible by machine / MEWP, and hence climbing is the only option, and ADB is prevalent and significant in the area, AND you have a risk averse client ('most', and neighbours usually 'more so') I can kinda understand it. Cheers.. Paul

In terms of a 'base ticket', interpreted as "evidence of adequate training", if its a prerequisite / justified it may be worth considering something like this Embankments - Working on / Recovery from Slopes - Element Safety ELEMENTSAFETY.CO.UK This course will train you to manage and maintain your own and co-worker safety while working on slopes. Find out more here

Firstly, and I guess dependent upon 'spacings' between the trees, it sounds like a Robo-flail might be a good option. Secondly, what you've proposed = 'risk assessment' (irrespective of IRATA (I think.)) Good luck, and go safe.

Arboricultural Association - Technical Guide 4: Use of Mobile Cranes in Tree Work WWW.TREES.ORG.UK A source of publications, guidance notes and leaflets for arboriculturists. Competitively priced available to members and non-members. Sect. 7 Accessing the Crown of the Tree - may be of help / interest.