Period trees

[JoceAndChris]

Keep the holm oak in the middle of the pic?

http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/joceneedham/Mobile%20Uploads/1-165.jpg

Here's another view of it:

[/URL]

Here's another holm oak we have, about 100 metres from this one, as you can see they get big - this one, and the storm-damaged one above, may have been put in when the cottage was built to have reached that size.This one isn't doing any harm, and will be kept.

[/URL]

I'm interested in views as I'm now paying professional gardens to help me redesign the border as you come in. Lots of people like it, though to me it's unappealing. If Chris's chainsaw had been up to getting through it, it would have been chopped down by now. Any thoughts from the gardeners out there? Can it be prettified?

 

[JoceAndChris]

Just like to add that the other side, with the roses, is the official view of the house - the back of the house is pretty but will never be seen in a long vista, because there are just too many nice trees, as well as a 20 foot holly hedge in the way.

[/URL]

 

[jocelyn plummer]

Underneath the spreading oak tree and all that-- tricky one Joce, personally I think the one in your first picture is lovely with it's knarled and twisted bark. If you keep it it will probably require shaping every five years or so, if you want to take it out then, presumably you will need to check for a TPO and then gain permission from the local Council to remove it.

 

[Flyfisher]

I agree with Jocelyn. The tree in the first photo looks lovely and doesn't seem to be compromising the house at all. My instinct would be to keep it as is. The other tree is less attractive and seems to be compromising the house so I'd be giving serious consideration to a severe pruning or perhaps total removal.

A good tree surgeon could probably improve the second tree and I'd suggest asking a few local ones for advice and a quotation for the work. But be prepared for some significant expenditure if you decide to use them. We've just had two huge poplars along our lane completely removed because they were very close to a neighbouring house and there was no change from £1600 :shock: The work took four days (they had to be dismantled rather than simply felled) so the price is understandable, though no less upsetting. Trees can be expensive!

Still, we now have plenty of firewood.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Firewood is always nice, but what an expense! Poor you! Did the neighbour contribute?

Sorry, I haven't been very clear. The tree in my first photobucket link, and the tree in my second pic, are the same tree. Just different angles. It's 7 metres from the house. If allowed to grow and spread, the canopy, which must weigh many tons when mature, would overhang the roof. Clearly it can't be allowed to get to that which means really keeping it as a kind of stump. Chris could get to the crown with his Hedgemaster pro ladder, and chop off the growth. if allowed to get much taller though, it's harness work and very expensive as FF says. Unless we buy all the tree surgeon kit and DIY it which might be the way to go - we've an awful lot of giant forest trees.

Interesting to get FF's and Joss's views, Gareth also likes it and so to the gardeners. I think I must have a bit of an irrational dislike of damaged and lopped trees that have been stopped from growing into their full glory (in this case it was the wild storm in the 80s that did for the tree)

 

[CliffordPope]

Definitely get rid of that oil tank. What an eyesore right next to that nice old shed

 

[JoceAndChris]

Oh, I know. In the placement of the oil tank and the garage the previous owner did the property no favours.

 

[Flyfisher]

Firewood is always nice, but what an expense! Poor you! Did the neighbour contribute?

No, no contribution, after all, it wasn't their responsibility. The trees really should never have been allowed to grow so large so close to the houses, though they must have been well established before the houses were actually built.

I had resisted having them felled for about five years but poplars do have a tendency to drop branches and a few times they landed in the neighbouring garden, so I can understand the neighbour's anxiety, and if they were ever blown over they could have wrecked the house as they were only about 20-30 feet away.

The other issue is that a tree inspection report would be necessary to satisfy insurers that the tree was 'safe' in the event of any claim. I was quoted between £300 and £500 for such a report and it would have to be renewed every 4-5 years . . . . hence my point that trees can be expensive.

So, all in all, I decided to bite the bullet and just have them taken down. It wasn't a happy decision though.

 

[CliffordPope]

I agree, I'm never happy cutting down a tree. But I reflect, trees are replaceable, and grow surprisingly quickly.
We have large trees in our garden I can remember as small seedlings 28 years ago. I had to cut down an oak tree I had stupidly planted too close to a 6 foot chestnut. The chestnut is now a large tree, and overshadowing a large spreading pine I bought in a tiny pot years ago.
Period property owners plan for the long-term, not their own lifetimes. Didn't Capability Brown plan long avenues of mature trees that wouldn't properly grow into his design for 100 years?

 

[JoceAndChris]

FF, I wouldn't be very happy about that either, how unlucky for you. Was it really beyond a DIY job? It's an ominous warning, really, that forest trees threatening properties should be identified and removed before they get that big. I know my holm oak will be around £300 to have chopped down and that's bad enough. With that in mind, as you can't have a holm oak 6 metres from a cottage, and as keeping it as a stump is going to be endless work, I think I will have it removed this summer.

Clifford- quite right, and I plan to plant our 3 acre field with some oaks. You have to think beyond your own lifetime.

 

[skier-hughes]

Our poplars are more than twice the height of the house and the house is 3 storeys high this side, so they are what 75' tall? No real idea, but I wouldn't be going up them to cut them down!!!!

 

[Flyfisher]

FF, I wouldn't be very happy about that either, how unlucky for you. Was it really beyond a DIY job?

I regularly use a chainsaw so I'm not adverse to DIY tree work but I know my limits and these two trees were really out of my league - especially as I have no mountaineering experience!

They must have been 70-80 feet tall and within 30 feet of a house so felling wasn't really an option (it was considered by the tree people but even with rigging and winches it was deemed to risky to attempt to fell the trees away from the house) so they had to be dismantled, which is why it was so expensive. It's suprising how slight a limb can seem from the ground but only when it's cut and lowered to the ground you can appreciate the size and weight of a 12-inch bough. The tree people lost one day to the weather because it was too windy to safely lower the cut limbs. Overall it was quite a specialised and skilled operation.

These photos are not terribly clear but they give a rough idea of the scale of the job. The first photo just about shows the trees in question near the tractor and you can just make out the outline of the tree chap in the second photo for a sense of scale. The trailer photo shows the first load of the smaller branches cut into logs. There were 7 or 8 trailer loads in total, and that was without all the spindly (2-3 inch) stuff.

 

[LadyArowana]

The tree people lost one day to the weather]

I take it that was the day you took the first photo, and explains why although the sign says "Tree Cutting" it illustrates a chap having a problem with his umbrella.

 

[Flyfisher]

:lol: :lol: :lol:
You're in fine form today Milady.

 

[skier-hughes]

He's not having trouble with his umbrella, he's telling people to put up umbrellas to protect themselves from falling branches! Come Come.

 

[JoceAndChris]

I still feel your pain for this Ff. £1600 isn't funny.

Now in stressful dispute in London over two trees - the quote for them is £1700. This is to fell our sycamore and prune the neighbour's lime. Everyone wants the trees done, nobody wants to pay -including us as the motivation for the work is simply increased sunshine for the neighbours. This must be such a familiar story. I am right that there's no obligation to keep them small, aren't I?

More happily, my gigantic silver birch and the holm oak in the opening of the thread are being felled on Monday I'm just delighted about this as I've hated them since moving in. And just £300 for both, including shaping the holm oak into a static chair. The cheapness of the quote is because I've agreed to let BC, with its 250 trees, become a training ground for the local tree surgeon course - they won't be cutting all our trees down (I hope!) but training the lads how to climb.


My last pic of the tall birch towering over poor little BC's roof!

 

[PeterI]

Now in stressful dispute in London over two trees - the quote for them is £1700. This is to fell our sycamore and prune the neighbour's lime. Everyone wants the trees done, nobody wants to pay -including us as the motivation for the work is simply increased sunshine for the neighbours. This must be such a familiar story. I am right that there's no obligation to keep them small, aren't I?

Seems a little steep to me, we paid £700 to remove a dead lime tree[1] in the back garden of the old flat in Camden (company called tree circle run by a nice guy called Eris) might be worth a ring? I think he's happy to give guideline quotes based on a photo.

[1] Confirmed by the councils tree and landscape officer.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Thanks Peter - but I got 4 quotes and they were all much of a muchness.

I've learned a lot. It is much much much cheaper to have a tree felled than pruned because the work on a big tree (and our lime is 30 ft) is the climbing up and down the different bits. The other thing that pushes up the price is access. Like in FF's case, the sycamore is going to have to be carefully dismantled because it grows right alongside a house and above a garage whose roof it threatens. Winches may be needed. And it's 100 ft tall.

We will get it done but not now.

 

[Flyfisher]

Well done with training course thing Joce; just the sort of creative thinking we expect from PPUKers.

Just a comment about the pricing of tree work, I also got multiple quotes. Two were within £100 of each other and the other was about £700 more expensive, though I think this was because the chap wasn't keen because of the proximity to houses. The chap I eventually used was not vat registered so that made quite an end-price difference.

There's no doubt that tree work is expensive but I don't think anyone gets rich from it. On my job there were three men for two days and two or three follow-up visits to tidy things up, presumably done during their spare time. Then there is all the rigging equipment and other consumables, 4x4 vehicles, trailers and the hire of a chipping machine - not to mention insurance.

As Joce rightly points out, simple felling is far, far cheaper but it's rarely possible when buildings are nearby.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Yes, the machinery alone must be thousands upon thousands. Just to get Chris set up with basic equipment was more than £1000, and that's with a chainsaw that's too small for the bigger trunks, no harness and a free wife who's sort-of willing to drag all the branches to the bonfire pile! I can't imagine what those munchers must cost, and the automated log splitters, but oh, we'd love to get them.

My cheap quote for our birch and holm oak reflects the training business I'm allowing, and also the ease of access, and simple felling process. I'm glad as although Chris has the experience to be able to tackle these trees, it would be more than £300 to buy him the chainsaw that's required, and he's very short of time.