Kylus Sylvestris

Hi Julian, it's Jon Kiely here. I signed up to Arbtalk under a pseudonym years ago and never got round to changing it. In any case, I'm Chairing the review panel. And would love feedback throughout the review process.

Please help shape the revision of BS3998. The following link takes about 10 mins to complete. We want to hear from as many professionals as possible

Please help shape the revision of BS3998. The following link takes about 10 mins to complete. We want to hear from as many professionals as possible

Please help shape the revision of BS3998. The following link takes about 10 mins to complete. We want to hear from as many professionals as possible

Really, I see lovely trees

Anyone can make an application to work on a TPO'd tree. And the Council must consider it. They don't concern themselves with boundaries (or even ownership necessarily). The application will be determined on its merits. BUT even if approved, the owner of the tree must consent to any works on their land. The applicant, if successful can undertake works overhanging their property. And I guess thats the issue here - where is the boundary? If you've made an objection covering the issues here, then the council must take into account what works are likely to be implemented, and if this has a detrimental effect on amenity it should be refused. If you've not covered all relevant issues - submit another objection, supply more evidence, shout from the rooftops.... good luck

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.