Roz

Was it a cop out on the TOs part to refuse and let an inspector decide?....internal politics.? public pressure? I suspect that also has a lot to do with it unfortunately!

For what its worth as a lowly TO my thoughts if I received the application ..... On the evidence submitted in the tree report from the consulting arborist I would have made a site visit spoken with the consultant and arranged to meet them on site. The underlying/historical reasons given for wanting removal may be none arboricultural and a bigger picture of light etc BUT Clearly a significant tree but based on the consulting arb report the tree has physical issues which compromise its functionality despite the tree appearing to be in good vigour – but is that due to grafted roots? The lean has increased from 5-10 degrees in 2006 to 11.7 in 2016 – so it’s either moved 6.7 degrees or 1.7 degrees, that’s a big discrepancy but the tree is clearly moving. I don’t have a fully working knowledge of QTRA but from the info in the report clearly the risk is considered unacceptable – taking all that into account and looking at the target area combined with the vertical crack, what has occurred within the rooting area historically I would be writing a report recommending the Beech was felled, I would feel that the risk is too great for the council to take the hit. On the basis also that Beech trees are shallow rooted and any reduction in the canopy to reduce weight would need to be significant and Beech trees are not tolerant of heavy reductions, it’s adjacent to another Beech reduction of sorts would need to be considered. There are times when I feel TO’s have to accept that a tree is at the end of its safe useful life within the urban environment and while we can say lets’ reduce it and see what happens, oh just leave it etc etc we are not god. There is a process and a replacement can be planted, I know that doesn’t replace the loss of a mature tree in the short term but where there are groups of even aged trees surely we have a duty to look at the long term management of the area which should include replacements? I forgot to add – I think a possible PICUS but that would have its limitations, if Merripilus was present and given there had been Dmp test and no significant cavities found it wouldn’t really help. Although I know a gut feeling isn’t fact but given the lean something had to be going on? Some excavation around the roots may have shed light on issues and wouldn’t have taken 8 weeks to do and there in would have been potentially damning evidence…….I don’t feel that the TO necessarily did a thorough job in requesting further investigation however how far do you go?

:confused1: I have to say words fail me on that one and I would think that condition would be seen as unreasonable. As mentioned previously there are 6 tests for writing conditions: - necessary; relevant to planning and; to the development to be permitted; enforceable; precise and; reasonable in all other respects. Mmmm

Agreed about reviewing TPOs however where a tree is in a prominent/significant location if in reviewing the tree fails to met the criteria and the TPO revoked then an important tree could be lost. If the tree is in private ownership than the owner has a duty of care and should rightly manage the tree, thereby if it requires removal under the TPO it can be replaced?!? The antagonism I feel about TPOs is the ambiguity of historic ones which only cover areas and lists in the schedule...'trees of whatever species.....' my frustration comes when I have requests to revoke TPOs that have been sitting with legal for 2+ years along with new TPOs to be served following review ?!?!

Not with a TPO, the dbh only applies to trees within a conservation area.

A council can place any condition on a DN...it would be normal to place a condition on that the replacement is planted within the next growing season and state the season...eg. 2016-2017. Also as you are not allowed to create a 'new animal' in terms of the TPO the replacement usually goes within the same vicinity of the one being felled therefore it is highly likely to be in the way and make the job of felling harder....no common sense there. Chris is right the replacement is not automatically covered the TPO needs to be varied to reflect the new tree.

REALLY is it listed on the schedule?!?!?........being a TO i would consider it to be an overgrown shrub and consider carefully the validity of the TPO if its listed. In any case within reason common sense works to a specimen such as that would be fine IMO.

Just an observation but has the tree formed a secondary lower crown? difficult to see due to the other trees in the pick but the top growth looks clustered compared to the extension growth lower down? Many years back I missed this on a Beech on the local rec....had grown up with the tree as a child.....it was always a mature specimen and it had always had a lean. When I started out in the world of arb I took more interest and was told by the groundsman they were always kicking off fruiting bodies. I asked them to leave them and sure enough it was meripilus but I didn't stand back and look at the overall crown form and density..if I had it would have shown the tree had been adapting to the dysfunction being caused by making itself more compact...it failed catastrophically one Sunday morning just after the junior football team had taken a break.....it was held up by one root no more than 1" dia.......the rest of the roots and base of the root plate were non existent. In the right places such trees can be retained & managed I don't wish to be negative...

In short my understanding is that if the TPO was not confirmed for what ever reason then the tree is still protected by the CA designation HOWEVER as you had submitted a S211 which would now be over the 6 weeks by default you have deemed consent? and can therefore fell the trees.

Correct only the trees that were there at the time the TPO was served - and hopefully listed in the schedule - are covered by the TPO providing there has been no review/update. The only grey area comes when in the schedule they list 'trees of whatever species including'..this leaves ambiguity in relation to are some of the trees of a size to have been present at the time of serving?? Hence the reason for TPOs to be updated and for Area TPOs only to be used in urgent situations to then be reviewed.

It would stick out like a sore thumb but Swamp Cypress (Taxodium distichum) would certainly make a statement in that landscape. Otherwise I guess the usual suspects of Willow, River birch, Alder, although if planted back from the edge where flooding may be less you could look at Pin Oak (Quercus Palustris) or Nuttal Oak - BUT you could open a can of worms of Native and introducing unusual non native?!?!?

I have sent samples in a brown paper bag so they can breath rather than sweat in a plastic bag....I guess placing them inside an envelope 'inside an envelope' would be as good - usually send first class (although that can be as slow as second class?!) and if you think they are going to deteriorate take some good photos to include.

You could try finding someone/information through the Orchard network? - http://www.orchardnetwork.org.uk/content/east-england...they may be able to point you in the direction of a person to help.

Thanks Alec - this was my concern as you say Princeton wasn't the panacea it was made out to be, it also developed tight unions at 15-20 years of age and I understand from Barchams as soon as they knew this they stopped selling it.

Does anyone have any real time knowledge of this tree as a tree for urban situations? I have read various profiles about it which all indicate that it makes a good suitor BUT then read that it requires high maintenance due to co-dominant stems, heavy side branches, crown die back and susceptible to scorch in the summer. The proposed location is a riverside development within the square and along the river frontage but facing new buildings with glass frontages so thinking about heat reflection in the summer, high pedestrian traffic with high maintenance....... etc They are to be planted in GreenBlue arborsoil - once again anyone with any experience of this product? I can read the blurred on their web site and look at the case studies but what about 3, 4, 7 years down the line? Any thoughts/experience greatly received.

Sorting out the photos into files - as it is that quiet time as Christmas is upon us - I thought I would share..... First one Cortinarius violaceus, Second Pholiota squarrosoides? third Russula (help was sort for ident of 1 & 2 )

I agree - it is a civil matter and these can get very messy and expensive with no party achieving anything except entrenched bitterness. Also unless you know all the facts and there are two sides to every story and its easy to dig an unintentional hole................ If the owner wishes to report it to the police in terms of potential trespass with damages then so be it.

Buds are like crab claws

Thank you - I will return with a knife to cut into the Ganoderma, have got lazy over the years with ID getting bogged down in doing the job and politics. Giving myself a boot up the proverbial to pull those socks up, too easy to get stuck in a rut.

While walking between sites today I took a couple of pics, all on declining Horse chestnut, or within the root zone. As my fungi ID is rusty to say the least - one is Ganoderma but not sure which, any ideas on the two others?

A majority of research comes from the agricultural world - not surprising - and clearly there is a vast diversity within the sand, silt & clay classification hence there isn't one table to reference, every site would need to be tested but a rough guide for root impedance Sand >1.80 g/cm3 Silt > 1.65g/cm3 and Clay > 1.47 g/cm3. In relation to the alternatives to a cellular system boards on a geotextile & sand/Woodchips even when secured at the sides is high maintenance due to the roller & squeezing effect of continuous vehicle passes....in my experience I have to say metal/heavy duty PVC track way while pricey is easy to install clean & tidy. If as above you require temp infilling of depressions avoid using building sand due to salt content although if temp may not be too much of an issue..BUT as TPO trees need a proper job

To make that evaluation you would need to know the CBR (California bearing ratio) of the soil in situ along with the soil bulk density - with the technical data from Cellweb the impact can be determined. There is going to be some compaction but providing the compaction does not exceed the worst case scenario for root penetration there shouldn't be any issues. Clearly if its a temporary road then before and after bulk density readings can be taken - determining the bulk density of soil is fairly easy if you liked science experiments at school. So in theory using Cellwebs knowledge of their product along with the information about the site you provide for them to draw up a spec you can work out the exact compaction that occurs from the temporary road.

Yes you can TPO a tree before it goes in the ground, if for example with major developments trees are approved as part of the landscaping scheme, are defining the character of different phases and going to be in private ownership as open space and street trees are getting squeezed how do you retain what is being approved for the future and longevity? It kinda defeats the landscaping condition(s) ?? That is a debate for another thread but it can be worded in the citation that trees in the schedule marked ....."".... will on being planted be protected (clearly not the legal terminology) - sorry cant find the detail in Mynors ..off home been a long day. I haven't used it and am not aware of a LPA that has although I have had much debate with other TOs over the years and planners.

So LPA serve an area TPO as they feel the situation is urgent and don't have time to undertake a full and detailed survey - consent then granted under this area TPO to fell 10 trees which were apparently 'exempt' from the TPO and a condition to replant 5 trees placed on the DN...the question being the six months has expired on the original area order and allowed to lapse therefore is the replacement planting condition still legally valid. IMO NO if the TPO lapsed it has no legal standing. The new TPO was served to be more definitive which was the correct thing to do BUT what they should have done is confirmed the area TPO, drawn up the more definitive TPO and either 1) on the replacement trees being planted revoke the area TPO and/or serve the new TPO - to include the replacement trees so they are protected as soon as they are planted then revoke the TPO. By not confirming the area TPO IMO the condition to replacement plant becomes null and void.

Leaf does look very Sorbus family is it grey felted on the underside ? possibly Corylus colurna (Turkish hazel). Would be useful to see full pic to show form and also any fruit or seeds.