Kylus Sylvestris

Hi John, This is an interesting post and one which I can't reply to as fully as I'd like. Yes, its perfectly reasonable to deviate from the arbitrary default circular RPA with justification. It's not something that can be addressed without the particulars as there are many unknowns here: How deep was your trench? What is the condition of the tree... species/age/health etc? (will it tolerate the RPA infringement)? What are the existing constraints to root growth? and many more... By way of a starting point.... The default RPA is intended to protect a volume of soil - sufficient to sustain the tree. So soil type/depth is important. The x12 RPA doesn't protect all the roots - typically about 1/3 to 1/2 - so arguing about encroachment and size/shape can be exceedingly tedious if the LPA are fixated on arbitrary circles. The attached pic gives you an idea of typical root spread vs minimum RPA. Logically if you have a minimum RPA there must be a maximum. And so if you've pinched a small amount of RPA then maybe consider retaining additional area outside RPA.... such that the actual impact on the tree is lessened in any event. Knowing how, what, where, and when any deviation is justified will take professional assessment. Get this assessment done early. I'm actually on the BSI panel that has just issued the (draft) revised BS5837, and I'd be happy to have a chat with you about your particular issues. ROOTS RPA.pdf

😂 thats kinda where I was going....!!

Happy to discuss over the phone!

Quite. Hence my original question... why the TPO application? In any event the works required are to the driveway, not the tree. At least at this point with the info provided. I think someone already said 'take out the broken bits and put some gravel down' [sic]. I would say there's a lack of detail about what's going on below this existing drive. So I'd suggest removing some or all of the damage and then work out the likely effect on the tree of the myriad solutions to improve the situation for the client. Too soon to offer up a spec. Worth considering a temp measure after further site investigation such as bridging any shallow roots with thick ply over sand or something...

look at the 2nd post!

why are you making a TPO application?

anybody recognise it?

In light of the fact that UK LPA's have a Duty to make provision for the preservation of trees.... isn't it a shame that retained aged trees aren't TPO'd before planning consent is granted. We've really got to pull our socks up. And perhaps start doing what is meaningful, rather than what is expedient. DETAILS, DETAILS, DETAILS.

Are PALMS considered to be TREES? This is not a straightforward question as ‘TREE’ is not a scientific term. Even the Courts have wrestled with this - where it has been determined that a tree is anything one would ordinarily call a tree, however, that was in relation to plant age (of typical native woodland ‘trees’) rather than scientific classification. And the scientific community hasn’t always agreed either way. In the same sense there is no scientific definition of ‘shrub’, which can include ‘tree’ species less than 5-10m in height. In broad terms one might consider ‘trees’ a source of useable timber, which palms are not as they don’t grow annual rings or produce wood. Although, the fact that palms are regularly called 'palm trees' adds confusion. In my opinion having worked with trees for over 30 years, I haven’t ever considered palms to be ‘trees’. But I understand the confusion and accept there will be contrary points of view.... and I do know of TPO'd cordylines in the SW.

Is it entirely dead? Looks like Holly at the base? 😂 And, I agree with the 'lottery' comment!

Why don't you reduce the width of the dropped kerb so it's outside the RPA. You're 4.5m wide access is rather large.

No I didn't have it wrong - it's unadopted POS. I've since found out that a management company was set up by the developer and they manage various bits around the site, funded by the residents. I'm waiting to hear back from them... ironically the management company is a trading arm of the original developer. Nepotism is fine when you keep it in the family!

A cluster**************** of a TPO related scenario that's really shocked me in the last couple of days. In short... 1900-2015 open-grown field oak, loving life. 2017 planning consent for circa 200 houses. Oak retained in Public Space (not adopted). 2018-2019 half of the tree's roots chopped off, soil levels altered, trenches dug within 6-7m, and houses built partly under canopy on one side. Tree pruned to remove branches overhanging property. 2023 (March) TPO request made to LPA (yes, me) 2023 (April) LPA serve TPO 2023 (June/July) Some ****************wit hacks it about without consent. No application on planning portal. Tree Officer not aware of any consented work. Nobody really knows who owns the tree as the consortium of developers will be very hard to find. And to top it all, a copy of the TPO is still attached the adjacent lamppost. The mind boggles. Question is, how to winkle out the culprits?

The previous 2009 application will be on file - check the online planning portal. The refusal notice has to state the TPO to which it applies.