Chris at eden

Strictly speaking the L3 has more punch but I did ND years ago and thought it was rubbish. I switched and did tech cert instead. Still L3 but way more relevant. With the professional qualifications such as rfs and tech cert you tend to do tree specific stuff. With the academic you end up doing business studies and tractor driving and stuff like that. If you are thinking of L3 have a look at the L4 qcf qualification. Its the new version of tech cert. I'm just finishing the L6 and its awesome. Speak with Keely at tree life for further info. They run small group sessions at various locations as day release. About 15 days over one a year. You will come out as a junior consultant.

ISA Certified arborist is L2. You get a study book to work through and advice on further reading at the end of each chapter. Once you feel ready you just sign up for the exam so you can take your time. That will be cheaper and less demanding as a starting point. Its probably not as good as the qcf/rfs L2.

It makes the situation a little more compliated in terms of getting works done as the tree is not under your ownership but it is jumping the gun a little at this point. The first step is to identify if there is an issue and ownership doesn't make too much difference when inspecting the trees. Inspections in terms of tree condition may be limited due to lack of access but the subsidence bit will be relatively unaffected. You can measure the distance from building to tree with a laser so not an issue if its off site. You would just deal with the results in a differnt way. I'm surprised your mortgage leder or insurance provider have not asked for a report. I did one recently in Birmingham where the tree was touching the building. If retained there was a risk of direct damage as the building it was touching was a light weight single storey extension. If removed there was a risk of heave as the geological data said the soil was shrinkable and the tree was older than the house. Fortunatly for the new owner the geo data was out of date and the soil was actually not shrinkable so he could remove the tree. He exchanged contracts before he found any of this out as the engineers report only loosly mentioned the tree. I wouldn't advise this approach as if there is a problem it becomes yours. Also, if you get it done upfront you could ask the vendor to part fund.

I would agree with Woodyguys assessment of age as a guess. The important thing with age is, is it significantly older than the house as this is what influences heave. I wouldn't comment further on a forum as it would be getting into technical detail which would make up a report. Issues of liabillity go with that. My advice is get a report from a local arb. For info. you cant just look at this tree if there is a risk of subsidence. You would have to consider: vegetation on your land which could damage your property vegetaion on your land which could damage adjacent properties and, vegetation on adjacent lands which could damage your property These all carry potential liabilities. Hope this helps,

thought it looked old, it has sash windows thats why i asked. does it have a cellar? if not then the foundations are probably about 900mm and that is shallow. Wouldn't meet current building regs on shrinkable clay with trees present.

Maidenhair it is. Its not a tree which is considered by NHBC in terms of water demand but that isn't that relevant. Even if you assumed it had low water demand its zone of influence would be 10m at least so its clearly close enough to be an issue in the right circumstances. Even shrubs and vines can cause damage on highly shrinkable soils. How old is the building? If you are on a clay soil get a tree report. Its worth spending a few hundred quid when you consider the cost of the investment you are about to make. Don't think that as it is a street tree it can't be a problem. There are loads of plane trees in London streets which cause subsidence.

Agree with you totally. Tree renewal programs are becoming more and more important with the aging tree stock but don't happen too often.

Yes agree with you on the standard of work. Its a hard sell trying to advise clients that it bad to top trees when the LA do it. I also realise that we all have to earn a living and LAs have to keep the members happy. If you or me don't do it, someone else will. I personally wont refer to that type of work as pollarding as that would be to associate it with best practice. I would call it topping and explain the difference to the client. Its the only way we move forward. I don't see that there is a need to plant huge forest type trees in narrow streets these days when we have all the streetwise ornamentals. Right tree right place is key!

Never said LA's work to it! Some do and some don't. Same with tree surgeons and consultants, some do and some don't. That wasn't the question. The question was 'is it bad practice' and that answer is yes. The lad who first posted was seeking clarification on the quality of the work as he thought it was bad practice. He was right and that is all I am saying. Sounds like he wants to work to a high standard and that should be encouraged irrespective of what the local TO does.

Oh I am miles out there then with the wound painting. So what about the other issues then? Codit, fungal strategies, etc. These are the real break throughs in modern arboriculture. Did we know about those in 1980? The 1989 version of 3998 actually said that pollarding was synonymous with topping. That's how far we have come in that amount of time. The 2010 edition is pretty much the opposite.

How is that any different? In 1980 Shigo may have known about codit but no one else did. Hence we as an industry knew nothing about trees. We were still painting wounds with arborex and filling cavities with concrete. When did matheck apply the axiom of uniform stress to trees? Or, when did Schwartze start looking at fungal colonisation strategies or different methods of reaction zone penetration? And when did that start filtering down to arbs? you are talking the last 10 - 15 years for the latter stuff. Mate, I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just think we can do better.

The main reason is the size of the wounds. They will never occlude. Proper pollarding should not introduce decay, topping will without doubt. You are also asking a lot of the tree if you remove all the potential energy within the branches and then ask it to compartmentalise huge wounds. Add to that the fact that there are very few buds for leaf growth and this adds to the problems. Pollarding on the other hand, you still have all the stored energy in the branches, the wounds are small and will occlude within a season or two, and there is a developed framework of branches for new leaves which means lots of energy from photosynthesis. Your instincts on pruning are spot on with is.

I have no problem with a regular pollarding regime. My argument is that the original photo is not pollarding and should not be referred to as such. It gives the wrong impression to clients. They rely on us to give them advice and it should be accurate. If trees have been topped in the 80's when we knew nothing about trees then fine they have to be managed as topped trees. But long term we should be looking at phasing them out with a tree renewal program and they should not be confused with genuine pollarding.

Why do you have to accept it? Its out-dated tree work by about 30 years. Why not change it? Its not even difficult we have 3998 which is basically an instruction book on tree work.

Good comment and you probably right on the cause but you can't top a tree and then manage as a pollard. You still have large wounds that wont occlude and that isn't pollarding. The original question was is it bad practice and the answer is yes it is. Whatever the reason.

I process tpo apps for a LA and it annoys me when I run apps to pollard mature maiden trees. Its not possible. Pollarding does not result in large diameter cuts and does not overly stress the trees. It also has a well developed framework of branches and starts when trees are young. It devalues the industry to call that Pollarding.

I process tpo apps for an LA and it annoys me when I run apps to pollard mature maiden trees. Its not possible. Pollarding does not result in large diameter cuts and does not stress the trees. It also has a well developed framework of branches and starts when trees are young. http://www.kent-treecare.co.uk/wp-content/gallery/pollarding/pollarding.jpg

The removal of the branches would not be exempt if the danger is not imminent. If you think they would be ok for the next 8 weeks then there is no reason you can't submit an app. I wouldn't think the TO would let you completely remove them either due to the size of the wounds, probably just reduce end weight if they are an issue.

Pollarding is fine I agree but that isn't Pollarding. Its topping mature trees and as the original post said bad practice. Where is it? You would hope its to mitigate subsidence risk but you never know. Poor species selection for the location also but I suppose it's historic.

Thanks for the info Paul. I'll drop nick an e-mail just to register my interest.

Cool idea. Are there any plans to look at something similar with the reg consultants? or is it something that may be considered in the future?

Good call. Its a component of asprin as far as i know. i saw Glynn Percival talking about its effect on trees at a seminar a couple of years ago. raving about it he was. another one he was talking about is front line, the flea treatment for dogs and cats. apperntly they both have far wider applications. unfortunatly, the latter is a pesticide and would require approval for different applications such as trees.

Hi Andrew, You do get the moss on Rigidoporus ulmarius but I've not seen this fungus growing on ash. Historically it grew on elm hence the name but in my experience it now usually grows on sycamore. Perreniporia fraxinea is more associated with ash (again hence the name) and still has the moss. That was my thinking. Its a guess to be fair as you can't tell for sure from the photo, or at least I cant. Another one with moss would be Pseudotrametes gibbosa but its not that. You thinking Rigidoporus then? What are your experiences in terms of the associated species of both. Cheers,

Could be. The green tinge may also suggest Perenniporia fraxinea

Good call