Chris at eden

Its not pollarding either - I agree though, its a no.

Quite good as street trees also - apart from the shallow roots under paving issue.

That wasn't based on health and safety being over the top, it was the claimants inappropriate use of the site despite all the warning and precautions they had put in place.

Think we have our wires crossed somewhere Mick. I was just saying formative pruning isn't bollocks (more to the other chap), its just not carried out. I agree with your other comments but the OP was asking for advice.

No worries mate. If its still around 21 years later I doubt you are doing too much wrong. Just as an add on, the wound response of deciduous trees during the winter is pretty much zero so no compartmentalisation at that time. Birch doesn't have a durable heartwood, suffers when the sapwood dries out (when not pumping up water - winter), and has a latent coloniser (always) + plus most of the other decay fungi sporulate during the autumn leading into winter. I will let you decide when the worst time to prune based on this is. To be fair its all pretty academic and in reality tree surgeons prune all year round usually with no ill effects as long as the cuts are kept to a minimum size, but if you want to be all scientific about it, that is how I would look at it.

Fair comment. Not Homo Sapiens. And the cognitive revolution was only 70,000 years ago so no ability to manage anything (including risk) before that. The first occupiers liability act was 1957, that was the game changer for liability. I agree that health and safety can be over the top but that wont wash with the judge will it. I was talking about formative pruning in general as a way to cheaply mitigate future risk. Can't argue with that on most sites. Again I was talking generally about formative pruning. You said it was bollocks, its not. Proper formative pruning can reduce the future risk of that two tonne limb in Hyde Park - it wont though as its not a priority.

Fair enough, but it doesn't sound like they do like it. They think its too big even though its already had a 66% crown reduction.

That is a pretty old school view. The drying of the sapwood will be more of an issue than the bleeding. The main issue with Birch is Piptoporus which has a latent colonisation stratgy meaning the spores are already in there before you start cutting. They are kept suppressed by the low oxygen content within the xylem vessels, once you cut and allow the vessels to dry out and oxygen to get in the fungus develops. The rag won't do anything but if the tree is healthy there is no reason why it cant compartmentalise. I would think its survival has more to do with the quality of your pruning than the rag to be honest.

No such thing as a heavy pollard. Sounds like its been mullered and just needs finishing off with 3 cuts at the bottom.

That is why I said most. They still pruned it as it was hitting the window, not for the good of the tree. The movement over time will lead to the formation of stem taper stabilising the tree. I agree. It has also lost its apical bud so will almost certainly form with multiple leaders - a defect for the future. Kind of the opposite of formative pruning.

We didn't have the HSE, the courts, and statutory legislation for millions of years saying that we need to manage risk at an appropriate level by removing defects in high target areas. Its cheaper and more effective to remove defects through formative pruning than waiting for them to become an issue requiring major tree works. Not that anyone actually does formative pruning (can't remember the last time I recommended it), or that the works described by the OP can be described as such. I take your point about the trees being fine without it but as with most pruning works, its for the benefit of people not the trees.

Too slack, too horizontal, small diameter branches presumably supporting the much thicker one lower down. Would have been better reducing the end weight.

As Steve said - its to prevent issues with shock loading in the event of failure. The movement comes from the use of the sling that allows the branch to rotate unlike with the old steel pins that went though the branch.

I used to be in the same situation during the 90's when climbing. Swings and roundabouts he used to say, even resorted to get us painting his fences sometimes. In the end we stopped rushing to get the jobs done and just did them in the time we had been allotted. Pretty annoying. When use a subbey I agree a fee upfront (usually a day rate) with them and then pay them that amount. If they get it done quick the day is theirs. Problem is, they can tend to rush it and send it back with loads of typos! Annoying from the other perspective, you cant win. What sort of consultancy do you do?

As Ed said, its one time pruning for that application. You sometimes have to spell it out to people to be on the safe side if you are unsure. I've never put the one time pruning on as a condition as its not really needed. If anything you would put it as informative text as standard. I have conditioned maximum cut sizes for crown lifting in the past which is a bit over the top as crown lifting is specified within a British Standard. If you don't though some tree surgeons (not many) will take out entire limbs and call it crown lifting, and then say 'I don't have the British Standard as it over £100'. Sounds like they are just trying to be clear on what is consented.

Some do but there are only so many head of service jobs and a lot of other departments with staff that want to move up. As above Nothing wrong with CPD, in fact quite the opposite. Its no different to private consultants going on CPD and then moving to another company or an LPA for that matter. There are more consultancy jobs in the private sector than there are head of service jobs and chief exec jobs in the LA. You can earn more as an expert witness than you can as a head of service and the work is more interesting in my opinion. I do both sides and the private sector is a lot less hassle and frustration - contentious I know but that is my experience.

Bjerkandera adusta - I think.

Hello mate Thanks for taking it in the spirit it was intended. The ZOI is calculated by cross referencing the mature height of the tree species and then multiplying by: 1.25 for high water demand trees. 0.75 moderate water demand trees. and, 0.50 for low water demand trees. It uses mature height as trees grow and so you have to consider the long term implications. The mature height of Hawthorn in the standard is 10m so the calculation is 10 x 1.25 =12.5m. That tree is at about 10m anyway so yes 12.5m would be about right. If you look at something like Birch - this is low water demand with a height of 14m - so 14m x 0.50 = ZOI of 7m. Bigger tree with a smaller ZOI. Or, Wellingtonia with a height of 30m and moderate water demand - 30m x 0.75 = ZOI of 22.5m, so a moderate water demander but with a larger ZOI just due to its size. Then Hybrid Black Poplar has a ZOI of 35m as it is big and has high water demand. You can view the list in NHBC Chapter 4.2 which you should be able to find on Google. As Gary said its not perfect and there are instances where damage can occur outside of these numbers but its the main source of info we have at present. There is a famous quote by Giles Biddle which goes along the lines of 'the only predictable thing about tree related subsidence is its unpredictability'. Sums it up pretty well. Cheers

Cheers mate. Hope you are well.

It doesn't actually relate to water uptake. It's used to calculate the distance at which trees tend to cause damage based on observation. Water uptake on its own isn't sufficient to cause an issue as you know. You have to tie it in with the other observations made on site, again as you know. My point was that alluding to the fact it wont take up enough water to be an issue is wrong in this situation. The tree is 5m from the building and has a ZOI of 12.5m. In the right conditions that could be an issue.

How do you know its 30 years old? Subsidence is a lot more common than heave but under the right conditions there could be a risk. Assuming that the tree is 10 years younger than the house then the risk of heave should be low. I wouldn't assume anything from the photo though, if you have concerns get it surveyed properly. Not all clays are shrinkable. To be shrinkable, at least 35% of the soils make up (just the solid parts) must be fine clay. You can get this tested at a lab using the Atterberg Limit Test, its not cheap though. You could also look at the online BGS viewer to get an idea. Its not 100% accurate but I use it for mortgage reports as long as there is no pre-existing damage. I know this is out there in a BRE practice note but it doesn't stack up for me. If you have the tree removed in one go or in stages it will recover to the same level if there is a persistent moisture deficient. Other opinions may differ. There will be soil and roots under the tarmac most likely. It minor damage, I doubt the council will see that as a priority. No one can advise you with the info provided. You will need to get it looked at properly by a tree consultant if you want anything worthwhile. No comment - it's second hand info. Its not. I've seen subsidence on Mercia Mudstone and Pennine Coal Measures. Again, if you have concerns then get it looked at properly.

Hawthorn is a high water demand tree with a zone of influence of 12.5m so this comment doesn't really stack up. No offence intended, just pointing out the facts.

Soils can desiccate to 500mm with no vegetation present at all, just from the drying action of the sun. If you really do have 300mm foundations then it may also be prone to settlement so may not be subsidence at all. It would be worth doing some monitoring to find out.

First set of building regs came out in the 1960's. Not sure what the minimum foundation depth would be at that time but I don't think it would be 300mm, that sounds more like 1860's.

I'm not sure how anyone ever thought that it made any sense at all. if you remove the tree the soil will recover if there is a persistent moisture deficit. If you remove it in stages it will recover gradually but still to the same level. Hence the same damage.