Chris at eden

What do you mean by large? If they are limbs rather laterals they will most likely decay no matter what you do so just leave them. As Gary said, the bleeding will flush out to an extent but birch as a species suppresses decay by keeping vessels full of water and therefore anaerobic. Once they dry out, they tend to decay more often than not.

If you don't agree with the condition just appeal it. If the PINs think its unreasonable, then they will change the spec. I would think in this case they probably will. I usually condition 8-10cm because they establish better. I picked up an appeal about 10 years ago as my predecessor had conditioned select standard (10-12) replacements and the tree owner wanted to plant light standard (6-8cm). The PINS dismissed the appeal and made her plant 10-12cm. It was a TRN she was appealing which had been dragging on for a while before is started. The appeal was via a hearing so was assessed by a planner. I personally think 10-12 is reasonable but I wouldn't go much bigger.

If its within a woodland then you probably don't have to replace it (if its windblown), if outside of a woodland then you do. Its in the online guidance (the blue book is no more). If you are removing under exemption because it is dead or imminently dangerous then section 206 would apply and you will need to replace. You may well think, well, its not dead its just uprooted but still connected and alive, and not an imminent danger. In this case the TO may say, OK, in that case you need to apply to remove, at which point he can condition the replacement. I suppose in theory, if its not dead and doesn't create an issue you could just leave it to become a phoenix veteran.

Why would you think that? Subsidence is way more common than heave. If the tree continues to grow then the subs risk will increase. If the frequency and length of droughts continue to increase then the risk of subs will increase. Then in again the house could have sufficient foundations. A lot of old houses have cellars. It’s difficult to say without the facts but the situation where heave is the bigger risk are pretty rare. My my advice to the OP is get it looked at properly.

In some councils they are, but not all. I've worked for three different councils with the most recent being very pro-tree and responsible. TO and landscape dept are valued and their decision respected. The middle one were not too bad and would follow the TO to a point. But if there was enough moaning they had a system where the councillors could fill out a form and divert funds from risk management and get trees felled against the advice of the TO. The first one I worked for back in the 90s would do anything you asked them to if you moaned enough. I wasn't TO at this one, I was on the tools so it wasn't my doing, but it was ridiculous. I think its a good idea by Gove.

I agree with both of the above. Just because you don't need to use the one app doesn't mean that an accurate spec isn't required. Otherwise how does the LPA know if what you are doing would have a negative impact on the visual amenity of high value trees, in which case a TPO would be required? I don't really know why people submitting a 211 wouldn't use the one app anyway, it not exactly arduous. Cheers

Not to mention phenologically the timing isn’t great anyway. The would response of deciduous trees in the winter is zero. That said, tree surgeons work all year, usually without issue. Council depts are skint so I doubt they have a problem spending the money they have for trees. This will be because someone has moaned for long enough rather than priority based on risk, which is just as bad. Not all councils operate in this way but I’d say more do than not.

🤣

That's a good one Gary. Once they are on, they are on. I did some subcontract works for an LPA processing TPO apps a few years ago while they were without a TO. I came across area orders from the 60's which covered fields which are now housing estates, huge areas with hundreds of houses. They also had one from the 50s that had a P designation. It stands for parkland, I had to Google it!!! Not sure how that would stand up to enforcement.

Not advocating felling large shrubs without consent but what the TO considers as appropriate and what legal will enforce can often be two very different things. Again helpful - not so much!

By the way, I would consider holly to be a tree if left to grow unchecked so no reason it cannot be protected. Just to be clear.

Where did you get that from? Woodland TPOs cover trees and tree saplings, not woody plants. Shrubs, climbers and managed hedges are not covered whichever classification you use.

Looks like some separation in the fork as well from the top photo.

Where are you based mate? I cover quite a large area (London - Manchester) so I can keep you in mind if anything comes up round your way. Thanks for the comments on the website by the way.

Looks like everyone is waiting for David to finish his lunch, although apparently someone likes it.