AA Teccie (Paul)

A big factor for me is the size, and form, of the tree crown - once had an application to fell ("remove") a vet Oak on a development site based purely on the 'T/R' factor - the form of the tree with very low major limbs meant it couldn't fall over if it wanted to Whether T/R is valid or not (apologies for the pun, unintended) it has brought the issue of hollowness not being solely a reason to remove a tree to the fore...no bad thing. Thanks..

Maybe worth a look here (also available as an e-book) - maybe the college(?) has a copy Arboricultural Association - Technical Guide 3: Rigging and Dismantling WWW.TREES.ORG.UK A source of publications, guidance notes and leaflets for arboriculturists. Competitively priced available to members and non-members.

In practice, and in the interest of being objective, many LPAs use something like the Helliwell System, or similar, to determine levels of amenity offered by a tree(2) to defend against objections.

Wouldn't consider felling without further inspection / investigation, e.g. Picus and/or resistograph...and a competent tree inspector / arboriculturist. The fungus may be Oyster Fungus (TBC!), common on Beech and saprophytic I believe, i.e. deadwood colonising. The position, centrally within the wound possibly indicates good compartmentalisation, i.e. defence mechanism by the tree shutting off access to living wood. In terms of being "an entry point" (for decay organisms), whilst there may be some validity to this for certain fungi, the current thinking (research - Lynn Boddy) is that many fungi are latent within the tree and pruning introduces oxygen which stimulates them and makes them active. In summary, please don't fell the tree solely on the basis of the photograph - being in a children's pay area warrants a detailed inspection but doubtless it provides some level of shade benefit during hot, sunny days...plus of course all the other benefits of trees we know about (good firewood not included! lol) Cheers, Paul

Ask them to explain how they are meeting their duty of care responsibility, as a land-owner, in relation to the trees in question - they are obliged to do what a reasonable / prudent person would do given the circumstances (also the reasonable expectations will likely vary from 'person to person' dependent on differing factors, e.g. one would normally expect a higher level from this person (I would suggest), directly or indirectly, than a home owner, but not the same level as a Council arboriculturist / tree expert...generally the more knowledge, and more resources, the greater the expectation.) Consider contributing to costs of works if you are the main / only beneficiary, and make this proposal known to said person when you meet / talk (bear in mind Conservation Area / Tree Preservation Order etc. restrictions if you are given permission to procure works to the trees.) Have a look here https://ntsgroup.org.uk/guidance-publications/and/or engage a professional arboriculturist to advise / guide you. I hope you get some reassurances from the landowner / manager but please bear in mind what attracted you to the locality in the first instance - perceived worries and threats can be very damaging to trees, spoiling lovely urban areas. ATB Paul

This may also be of interest: FISA 608 UKFISA.COM This document provides guidance on the safe working practices to be followed when operating tree shear and grapple saw equipment. The guide is intended for anyone specifying or...

Have a look here ('FYI') - presume there are other providers offering this too. Use of Tree Shears or Grapple Saws - mwmac Ltd MWMAC.CO.UK

Hi there, Can you please confirm that you mean "cutting at 2.4m above ground level", and why so prescriptive, i.e. is there a basis for this as seems quite prescriptive (BS3998 says 2-3m). TIA Paul

They do sucker prolifically - as a previous TO we would drill and apply herbicide in the growing season and wait until we saw some decline then fell and drill / apply herbicide to the stump (not grind)...and then treat suckers with herbicide as necessary (and 'hope for the best' tbh - probably 2nd only to White Poplar for suckering.) Good luck..

Bet that was the 'back roads' route...flip! Hope the footie was good

In a nutshell, "yes", provided i) the trees meet the 'amenity test', which they certainly appear to from the photo, and ii) it's expedient, your proposed actions make it so, the TPO is appropriate. This doesn't mean you cannot undertake any 'cutting back', it means you will need to make an application under the TPO and the Council / Tree Officer has control over how much you can cut (they may allow some cutting back but less than you apply for, i.e. not back to the boundary, and of course may refuse it all together (in which case you can appeal but this is a very long process.)) You have 28 days to raise objections to the TPO, which you should consider. To conclude I would hope a 'compromise' is achievable and you should discuss this with the Tree Officer involved ASAP. Regards, and hoping you find an acceptable compromise. Paul

Real sorry to hear that - assuming it's the same chap, I met him a good few years ago working with his brother for United Utilities in Cumbria - as you say as genuine, "down-to-earth" type, and a very competent arborist as I recall. "All good things come to an end eh" - RIP.

Hello, thanks for your post. Firstly, under the circumstances, I would recommend you appoint an Arboricultural Consultant to advise and assist you with your application for a drop-crossing to your property. Regarding the RPA, circumstantially, given the tree probably isn't 'open-grown' and hence is unlikely to have roots in the highway, they may not consider the simple radius determination to be applicable (the tree is likely to have more significant rooting running parallel with the highway and potentially at greater distance than one might usually expect - often species specific.) In terms of what level of likelihood will there be of encountering roots at the specified RPA radius = 'some' (tree roots are often unpredictable and hence to excavate a (slit) trench is the only way to determine this.) Regarding what constitutes a root, in this context - usually considered to be anything 25mm dia. or above. Hoping the above indicates why you need to engage an arb consultant. Good luck with your application. Paul PS In terms of where / how to engage a consultant - you can enquire here, you could ask your Council if they can direct you, or you can look here https://www.trees.org.uk/Registered-Consultant-Directory or here https://icf.datawareonline.co.uk/Directory-of-Consultants

..including Tom (TD Trees..) https://www.trees.org.uk/~-Trees-org-uk-media-Trees-org-uk-Inner-20Page-4?postcode=FK9 4LA&radius=62

Forgive my seeming 'sales pitch' (entirely circumstantial) but here's a good start (I think): Arboricultural Association - Summer Sale Professional Tree Inspection Bundle WWW.TREES.ORG.UK A source of publications, guidance notes and leaflets for arboriculturists. Competitively priced available to members and non-members.

Hi Paul, thanks for this post - just to clarify, as defined buttressing (not a great term, sorry) is characteristic of Sycamore IME, that this is reaction growth resulting in buttress expansion (and enclosure / inclusion) because of the internal decay caused by the fungus? Just trying to better understand the situation as, on the face of it, I'm not sure I'm seeing, or maybe not recognising, what I should be (perhaps its more obvious on site.) TIA Paul

Apologies - I've just realised this is a link to a 'training providers' website - hence this is NOT a recommendation for them - it's just a link FYI. Paul

Hi there - this may be of relevance / use (as technically anybody working on, or placing cones & signage on, the highway should be NRSWA qualified, including operating the chipper roadside etc.): NRSWA Unit 2 Signing, Lighting and Guarding Training - Unit 2 NRSWA-COURSES.CO.UK NRSWA Unit 2 Signing, Lighting and Guarding Operative Course UK Wide Regular Open Courses Run, or save money with In-House Courses Call Now!

Not aware of any direct correlation between the two factors (as Stubby has so eloquently stated, lol) but doubtless it is coincidental in some instances as pronounced buttress flair / fluting is a known characteristic of the species (at maturity) and, as they are 'poor' compartmentalizers, rot / decay is often present in the corresponding stem,section (particularly when they've been previously 'topped' (NOT pollarded!!! - see BS3998 Sect. 7.10) - a common practice.) Of course, in terms of significance, where prominent fluting / buttressing is present, the significance of any internal decay is likely reduced (often confined to the central core IME (albeit many years ago when I encountered the species more often.) Just "my thoughts" on the subject that concur with others....PHEW Cheers, Paul

FYI the one's I'm aware of, and commonly encounter, are: - Arb Pro - Papertrail - ARBM8 - ARB HUB plus others which don't have an arb specific application.

Arboricultural Association - Technical Guide 3: Rigging and Dismantling WWW.TREES.ORG.UK A source of publications, guidance notes and leaflets for arboriculturists. Competitively priced available to members...

Hi all, usual requirements - on a lead / under control (latter - both the dog(s) and the owner ) Look forward to seeing you there...hopefully in the sunshine. ATB Paul

Good morning Mark, et al - "in a nutshell", unfortunately, despite concerted efforts over the years trying to get CSCS to accept / recognise the NPTC qualifications card as an equivalency for CSCS card purposes we've had no success (whatsoever.) They haven't / won't consider our requests (in effect they've now added it as an additional requirement 'over-and-above' the ROLO H&S course and CSCS test, so perhaps they have given it recognition .) Essentially we're not a large enough industry sector to have sway and make them change so if you require CSCS cards to access work sites, which is essentially what it is, you need to engage with the process (done via BALI and the LISS Scheme (Landscape Industry.) Sorry all, really can't help here. Paul

A crane, in effect, presumably the SWL reduces with outreach. Need to think this one through carefully and perhaps a proper crane is the best / better solution. Coming at this from an industry guidance perspective - the MEWP as an anchor is contrary to TG5 (sect. 5.1.3l) , and therefore unwise as such, the use of a crane is a better option (TG4 Sect. 7.4), ideally used for tree crown access but short-duration(?) works suspended from the hook can be undertaken (ideally using a carrier / basket.) Maybe worth engaging an advisor to draw up a suitable RAMS etc. Go safe..