Bit of a wild stab in the dark this but looking for some rough advice. We’ve a 7-8m tree in our garden (might be a beech or a hornbeam) that potentially has a protection order on it, yet I’m considering chopping it down as it’s a bloody nuisance.

The council are unable to say if it is protected or not. I’ve asked them several times and they’ve given me all the documentation they have, which being from the sixties when the houses/road was built, are very vague.

All it says are effectively that some of the trees in a designated area are protected, yet there’s no way of proving beyond doubt that the one I want to get rid of is. Even though it’s within said area shown on a map drawn up when he road was built.

If you’re still with me and can offer any advice, should I leave it alone or am I reasonably within my rights to fell it, seeing as it can’t be proven that it’s protected or not? Also, I can’t see that this small tree would be almost 50 years old?

Appreciate any advice. I’ve asked the council several times about what I should do and they’re of very little use. All they’ve said is refer to the plans I mentioned from the sixties but they don’t tell me much at all!

You’ve asked, they’ve been useless – get the log burner installed. 😀

‘some of the trees’ or ‘the trees’

I’d talk directly to the LA tree officer. They’re normally pretty amenable (work in utilities so we work with them all the time). Even if they are resistant to removing the tree they may allow work on it to alleviate the problems it’s giving you. Just hacking into it is pretty a sure way of landing in the shit as it will pu their backs up and give them reason to go after you.

In our part of the world, NE Hants, we have a general tree protection order and a specific tree protection order for nominated trees.

Probably the easiest thing to do is to put in a planning request to cut down the tree. In this case the council will need to do something. I suspect that they have a time limit in order to respond after which the request is approved. The main issue is that you want to cut down a native tree. Just because it is a ‘big’ and a ‘bloody nuisance’ is not a good reason for wanting to cutting it down.

There are large fines for cutting down protected trees.

I can’t see that this small tree would be almost 50 years old?

Cut it down and count the rings.

I’d document the contact with the council, and crack on. If you’re unsure of the age of the tree, cut straight across the main trunk, you’ll see a pattern of rings, count them. 🙂

Edit:beaten to it by 36 seconds!

Just because it is a ‘bloody nuisance’ is a perfect reason to want to cut it down. Not all trees suit all locations.

it’s windy outside tonight, it might just fall down….

My FIL has a very large copper beech in the front garden that is damaging the wall separating the garden from the pavement. The tree surgeons wanted written confirmation from the council that it could be removed.

We checked our council web site which has plans showing which areas of the village was covered by a TPO and their house was outside the area covered. Just to make doubly sure we wrote to the council to get written confirmation that it could be removed and they replied stating that, although the tree was outside the TPO area, he should not remove the tree as the council feared a backlash from people living in the area.

So OP I’d get back onto the council and get written confirmation that you can take it down otherwise you may find yourself in a bit of trouble.

edit: I think a TPO may apply to ALL trees with a specified area and not to individual trees, in which case if you’re in the area then the tree would be protected.

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/10068984.Axed_tree_costs_man_record___125_000/?ref=arc

I’d exercise caution.

I’m working on a job where one of our contractors was a little ‘enthusuastic’, remediation costs are currently in the 10s of £k. No decision has yet has been taken on whether to prosecute.

it’s a bloody nuisance.

why?

Why?

What is the exact problem, Painey?

If it’s potential structural damage from roots, then perhaps it should go.

But if it’s loss of light, then perhaps you could remove some of the lower branches to “raise the crown”. Check for nests first though, at this time of year.

Beeches and hornbeams are lovely trees, but all those seeds are a damn nuisance!

Thanks for the advice so far, wasn’t expecting much but really appreciate the help!

We’ve already taken down 7 trees in our garden, which sounds big but isn’t (50ft x 50ft). Six of them were awful Leylandii things that I hated. Biggest about 15m. One of them was a silver birch that I contacted the council about and they dithered and said they couldn’t see anything specific about it so gave us the verbal go ahead to remove.

That’s why I’m thinking I could do the same with this one. It’s a nuisance because it’s blocking out most of the sunlight to parts of our garden which leave it damp and unsuitable for our 2yr old son. Plus there are several very large oak trees in the garden behind and to the side which most definitely ARE protected. We get a ton of leaves in are garden so anything to reduce that would be a bonus.

So having spoken with the LA Officer on more than one occasion, I can’t see conclusively that is IS protected or not so I’m thinking even if I cut it down and it somehow turns out to be, surely I’d have a minimal penalty to suffer? Eg planting a new one.

Thanks again

Don’t do anything verbally. Get it in writing.

Painey – Member

So having spoken with the LA Officer on more than one occasion, I can’t see conclusively that is IS protected or not so I’m thinking even if I cut it down and it somehow turns out to be, surely I’d have a minimal penalty to suffer? Eg planting a new one.

Think a hefty fine.

Poison it, then you have to cut t down when its dead

sadmadalan’s advice is good I think. We live in an area that is covered by a blanket TPO on specific types of tree (Oak, Scots Pine, Silver Birch). I spoke with the tree officer when we submitted planning for an extension, based on that conversation I wouldn’t recommend doing anything without written consent or acknowledgement from them.

If they can’t decide what you can do perhaps a carefully worded email/letter stating that to the best of your knowledge, and based on previous documented conversations with them, this tree is not covered by a TPO and as such you will remove it after <date> unless advised otherwise. That way the onus is on them to prove that it is covered and to tell you to stop.

Submit a planning application for works to a protected tree – if you have a good reason to remove it they may well let you.

“Quirrel – Member
Poison it, then you have to cut t down when its dead”

a common tactic along the coast here to improve sea views – the standard council response is to erect very very large sign boards advising local residents of the penalties for poisoning trees

I’m in the ” get written approval ” camp on this.

Beware of poisoning it, consequences of something like this dying off and falling are not worth thinking about !

You might be surprised just how much it could be reduced by, if you get a knowledgeable guy in to sort it , though ?

OP get a grip – it’s a tree. It’s sat there happily filtering the C$%p out of the air for you.

If it’s making your garden unsuitable for your son build him a treehouse round it/ in it. Most kids would rather play in a treehouse in the shade of a tree than scratch around on a bare patch of scorched grass.

It might be with a good tree surgeon you can get a happy compromise between tree and child…

Good luck

My advice is to leave it alone. If you’ve already cut down 7 other trees then it sounds like you’ve done more that your fair share of damage to the environment.

As burko says, your kid will need some shade to safely play outdoors in the summer. So why not try simply removing some of the lower branches this year? Then you can decide if that’s sufficient, or whether you still want the whole tree removed.

And he’d probably love a treehouse!

You could end up on the No Pudding list for this!

My advice is to leave it alone. If you’ve already cut down 7 other trees then it sounds like you’ve done more that your fair share of damage to the environment.

I’ve just planted 1800 trees, so feel free to chop it down. I’ll offset it for you by naming one of them Painey.

Be careful as you may get more than a fine. My neighbour got an immediate blanket tree protection order on their whole property after they cut down a pine tree without permission. If in doubt then I would leave it alone or planning application to work on protected tree.

My street is in a conservation area, so every tree removal needs Planning permission. However, most of my neighbours just cut them down and no one complains……

Everyone bitches about trees don’t they. Wrong tree, in the wrong place, dropping untidy leaves on my lawn, seeds on my drive, takes my sun, blocks my view etc.

My sister just bought a new house, new build with a wooden fence around it and a lawn. No trees, no hedges, nothing.

She can’t understand why there’s no birds in her garden…

You can have the wrong tree in the wrong place I guess and I’ve cut down plenty of trees in my time, i’ve planted plenty too.

Chopping it down’s the easy route. Thinking around the problem takes a bit more effort but might yield the best results.

There’s plenty of options to lift the crown, reduce the crown, thin the crown, re-balance the crown etc that could include building a tree-house and if none of those work then perhaps have a think about cutting it down.

We all need trees as society to live and prosper and i guess we ought to take some responsibility for providing them where we can and not expecting them to be grown by others.

Look at me, the hippy….

Burko

Trees are ace – especially for kids.

Before you decide to remove it – which may be the best thing for the neighbouring oaks by the bye – do as someone has already suggested and
– See about changing the shape of the crown and lifting the crown – allowing more/better light and air flow.
– If it’s a beech it won’t particularly like very dry conditions, but is unlikely to be the cause of your garden being damp.
– Build a tree house

I’ve spent the last 7 years removing older trees in poor health that were slowing the growth of trees in better health from an acre of land in the middle of an urban area. This included lots of Leylandi (awful stuff) but also some big sycamores and a couple of beech trees. The tree may be significantly older than you think if it has been overshadowed by a weed like leylandi. The remainder of the old growth (including an oak, scots pine, ash and 5 lovely beeches) have been carefully crowned to allow more light to new growth coming through.

Having said that, it may be that the nearby oaks would do much better without your tree (whatever it is)…

A subject dear to my heart having had my planning application bounced because of a Holly tree being too near. Actually the truth was the planning dept ran out of time and instead of doing what they are supposed to do which is ask for the information they chose to decline it. Having now given them the assessment we added a load of other trees into it for pruning and shaping (conservation area).
Its bonkers though. I got a legal letter telling me to cut the overhanging trees on the road, applied to do it and they declined so I wrote back to them enclosing their denial and they wrote to me and said that they would review it. Mental stuff. I chopped all the legal stuff back before the letter came anyway so go knows when they inspected it.
That;s getting towards a rant for me that one.

Spoke to the council again today and will get them to have a look at it, which I think is the sensible thing to do. Much as I like trees, there’s plenty of very nice, mature Oak trees providing plenty of shade for our garden. The one I mentioned doesn’t do much for the area it’s in and as has been mentioned, it’s removal may well benefit those that do.

If you’ve already cut down 7 other trees then it sounds like you’ve done more that your fair share of damage to the environment.

6 Leylandii and a dying silver birch = hardly deforestation.

OP get a grip – it’s a tree. It’s sat there happily filtering the C$%p out of the air for you.

Get a grip yourself. One person chopping down a small tree isn’t much in the scheme of things is it. And if that kind of thing really bothers you then I hope you’re equally vociferous towards your local MP if any building/development work threatens them in your vicinity.

Thanks for the replies that were helpful, i.e almost all of them. Cheers

+1 treehouse!

Beech:
Fagus sylvatica – MHNT
It is a large tree, capable of reaching heights of up to 50 m (160 ft) tall[2] and 3 m (9.8 ft) trunk diameter, though more typically 25–35 m (82–115 ft) tall and up to 1.5 m (4.9 ft) trunk diameter. A 10-year-old sapling will stand about 4 m (13 ft) tall. It has a typical lifespan of 150 to 200 years, though sometimes up to 300 years. 30 years are needed to attain full maturity (as compared to 40 for American beech). Like most trees, its form depends on the location: in forest areas, F. sylvatica grows to over 30 m (100 ft), with branches being high up on the trunk. In open locations, it will become much shorter (typically 15–24 m (50–80 ft)) and more massive.

Hornbeam (Carpinus betulus) grows wild in the south and east of England, where it may form woods and copses on its own or mixed with other species. Trees found in other parts of the country have probably been planted, or seeded themselves from planted trees.
The bark is grey with a silvery tinge, and the leaves produce attractive yellow and orange autumn colours. The female flowers are greenish catkins up to 12cm long and the fruit is a small nut with three-lobed wings to help with wind dispersal.
Hornbeams have a moderately slow growth rate reaching 6m high and 4m across in 10 years, 11m x 6m in 20 years and 25m x 20 when fully grown. Young trees are pyramidal in shape, becoming rounded as they mature.

It might be worth getting a tree expert to look at it, if it’s Hornbeam, then it can be heavily coppiced, which would yield a good supply of wood, and the tree will happily keep growing; coppicing Hornbeam was a common use of the tree for tool handles, firewood, waggon wheels, etc.

Jamz – Member
My advice is to leave it alone. If you’ve already cut down 7 other trees then it sounds like you’ve done more that your fair share of damage to the environment.

Cutting down tree does not mean damaging the environment/. This kind of simple association is retarded.

The OP in 2 yrs…

My neighbours have cut down protected oak trees as they claimed they were a nuisance, with leaves and such. Now my little Tarquinius cannot play in the garden as there is no shade. Who do i report them too. ;0)

Just to make you laugh, I was told to remove a leylandi tree & hedge (the “tree” was the last in my hedge that had been allowed to grow in to a whopping 15′, but with a huge circumference as it was regularly crowned) as part of my building regs for an extension, so at great expense I removed it & replaced it with a wall. All good I thought until I got a visit from the council to tell me I had removed a tree in a preservation area without permission. After my vent to the poor guy I was sent a letter telling me not to cut down any more trees on my property without permission, which I didn’t object to as it was the only bloody one!
Moral of the story is don’t rely on one bloke from the council giving you permission, get it in triplicate 😉

TPOs’ can apply to groups of trees or individual specimens.

I’m just about to build a house on a plot that has a full TPO on in.
They council haven’t a clue, I need permission to cut anything off any tree or hedge but they don’t know what’s on it to start with!
I recon there’s going to be a few conversations starting with “what tree”?