Chris at eden

Yeah, you won’t like it though. Dig it out. And you will have to get all of it. Not sure how realistic it is in that situation. I had one in a garden years ago when I was a kid. Spent the whole day digging it over and getting bits of root out. Got it in the end. Nightmare.

If it’s a private road and so not adopted they could possibly use Rootbridge to create your speed bump and that may be a permanent fix for that area. Expensive though so you wouldn’t want to be doing it in multiple locations. The road planer sounds like a bad idea. As in, a criminal offence with an unlimited fine potentially if the tree dies as a result.

If they want to retain it you would need to do a root collar excavation with an airspade to check the condition of the underside of the roots. I did one at the beginning of last year for a TPO protected sycamore with merip. The plan was to expose the buttress roots and resistograph them to check extent of decay. The TPO officer was on site during the works. Didn’t need to resi as you could push a trowel into the bottom two thirds of the roots with very little pressure. There were no canopy symptoms at all presumably as the top of the roots were ok. It was felled under a five day notice.

Are you sure she is a Lab, mine will eat anything that is even remotely edible.

I agree. Minor point to the OP. It’s not a bracket. Those type of structures are referred to as fronds. Just for future ref. cheers Chris

So do I. Top training provider.

I’ve raised it dozens of times while working for the LPA. It’s not the LPA that is the main problem. It’s the applicants and agents telling lies on the forms. They then moan when they get caught out and their app runs well over the 8 weeks while waiting on info. You can probably argue that the validation officer should pick it up but equally they shouldn’t have to. Slightly different situation. I returned a TPO app today as invalid is it came in dated beginning of July by the tree consultant. He would be moaning in a couple of weeks that it is overdue. You seem to have it in for LPA TOs Kev and I agree some are pretty useless. But a large percentage of consultants are no better. Good and bad on both sides as far as I can see.

Mate, I've worked as a TO. Highways can be a nightmare. About 15 years ago in a previous job I arranged a load of training for them via tree life to show them different options on repairing surfaces around trees. None of the management turned up and the workers that did just took the p*** out of the trainer. They then had the nerve to keep asking what to do about roots and got huffy when i said it was covered by the training that you didn't turn up to! It was a compete joke. They don't want trees in highways. That wont have anything to do with the Planning TO.

Yeah I agree, that definitely isn't a pollard.

In that case and assuming it is a mature large tree, it isn't pollarding. It's topping which is bad practice. Unless the tree is hazardous, causing damage, or has a serious impact on living conditions that outweighs the amenity then the TO is probably right and can probably defend it on appeal. Pics would be good. The fact that highways have topped the other trees isn't relevant, the PINS wont consider that. You could argue that they shouldn't have done it as its bad practice but you cant really use it as a justification for further works that are also bad practice.

You can’t pollard mature maiden trees. If they are large and have never been pollarded then taking the tops off would be topping. Not appropriate works. If they are lapsed pollards and need doing then go to appeal. You will probably win. Re. the other works. TPOs are administered by planning and more precisely the TO, he will like trees. The street trees are managed by highways. They won’t like trees. There are situations where councils have TPOd there own street trees to stop highways from felling them. Along with past management that could also be a factor. Cheers Chris.

And again, my original comment related to how its done, not why its done! mm is how its done, that is the only point I made. I don't really care why its done that way as it doesn't have an impact on me. If i could change anything from the standard it would be to switch the multi-stem calc back to basal diameter as working those out is time consuming.

I'll say it again. What i actually said was that tree experts in an Arb context use mm's the majority of the time for surveys when measuring stem dia's. As a result and just out of habit, after a while they start to discuss tree diameters in mm's. Not saying this is right or wrong although the imperial system is bonkers in my opinion. But, your comment was, oh no they don't. Sorry John but they do. They don't measure or discuss in inches which was the main point and that i would be concerned by someone claiming to be an Arb expert and saying this Cherry has a stem dia of 40in and it will double in the next 30 years. I know your background is forestry and knew this was where you were coming from with the comment. When I first moved off the tools in 2004 I was working out tree heights in feet and then converting them to metres in my head. I never made a conscious decision to just start doing them in metres but it just happened naturally over time. But at the end of the day we were not talking about forestry. Arb also has some well respected scientists do they not? But, they don't seem to raise the use of mm's to measure stem dia's as an issue. I can't see how using mm costs me anymore when doing Arb surveys, storing large amounts of forestry data maybe. Sorry to labour the point, but again not making a case for using mm. I have no issue with using cm's, inches would be a different matter. But it is what Arbs mainly do. Exactly. That is the reason I use them. What is bizarre to me is that the standard says to measure the stem dias to the nearest 10mm and then annex D works them out in 25mm increments. Cant argue with that. Or that. Or that.

Oh yes they do, he's behind you! Sorry thought we were back in panto season. I don't know what you are talking about to be honest. I didn't say using mm was sensible or silly or anything else. I simply said it is what Arb experts do. You actually allude to this in your first sentence when you say using mm's routinely in Arb is silly. It may be, but they do. 5837 uses mm's. As does QTRA. Planning related information must (I am told) be submitted using metric measurements which OK you could use cm's but when was the last time you saw a scale rule with cm's on it? CAD drawings from architects use mm's as do engineering drawings usually - and they know nothing about measuring I suppose? Why would we use something different? My point was that they don't use inches, and no nor do they use cm's often as far as I can see. The only Arb inspection system to my knowledge that uses cm's is the Picus software. If you measure to the nearest 10cm (100mm) rounding up then trees on development sites with a stem dia of 220mm would have RPAs increased from 2.7m to 3.6m, that isn't going to go down well with developers across the whole site. Again, i am not saying it is right or wrong, just that it is standard practice in Arb to use mm's, not inches to measure stem diameters. Your comments about multi-stem calculations (I think that is what you meant) I agree with to be fair but it still standard practice. This is actually one of the silliest things I have seen. Cheers Chris

I’m looking at it on the big screen now. 2nd pic - it looks like a big necrotic bark patch above the damage about 450mm wide and over a metre up the stem.

You could be right but as K said, a thorough examination is required probably with a Picus. You can’t really tell from the photos.

I’m not so sure it is minor. The damage looks pretty old but the is no visible wound wood formation at the edges of the cavity. The bottom pic also looks like an open cavity. How far does this extend in? cheers Chris

To be fair, 40in were your words hence the confusion. 300mm (12in)sounds more realistic. In that case you should write to the tree owner. See what happens but you may need to involve a solicitor if they won’t play ball. Cheers Chris.

Either the measurements are incorrect or the chap you spoke to isn’t a tree expert. Even if you have confused inches with cm’s, a prunus isn’t going to go from 40 - 80 in that time frame. Arb experts don’t measure stem diameters in inches either, or cm’s for that matter. Anyone who surveys trees in an Arb context will always discuss diameters in mm’s just out of habit after a while. Dan is correct, you should get someone to look at it objectively. Not someone who is quoting to fell. This is especially important if you involve a solicitor and end up going to court. Court compliant reports should be written in accordance with CPR 35. This is high end consultancy realistically.

What jules said. You could also go to appeal if the council TPO the tree and refuse an app to fell.

By the way. It was refused in the end. The neighbour objected so it was refused due to the negative impact on the neighbours land. Which was kind of what I was getting at.

Not sure what you mean. Apologies if I caused offence. Not my intention. I just don’t think the kids on Facebook is a good approach. I worked in a planning department for a long time and it’s the kind of stuff you hear all the time. I’m calling the newspaper, I’m putting it on Facebook. I pay your wages. I've had lengthy meetings with tree owners saying they can’t fell trees but advising them in detail to get a consultant and go for an appeal. They would write to the MP complaining instead. I’d tell the MP they have never applied or appealed. The Mp would tell them to follow the process. They then slag the MP off. There is a system to follow with planning and you can’t really get around it.

No need to point it out mate as that is what I was saying. I just think it is bonkers.

Yes I know. I’ve worked in a planning department for more than 10 years. I think it’s wrong in this situation. Applying to build on a piece of land you don’t yet own with a view to buying it is one thing. But, applying to build an extension the crosses your boundary into next doors garden is ridiculous. They rather have to involve a solicitor to prevent it.

The badgers and newts isn’t a bad idea but I doubt this one is a planning consideration. 😂 You’d be surprised what isn’t a planning consideration. I did a consultation for an LPA years ago and raised the point that the footprint of the building crossed the boundary into the neighbouring property. The planning manager said, not a planning consideration, it’s a civil matter. I said but you can’t build it. He said not relevant. It’s a civil matter. He works for the planning inspectorate now. Bonkers.