hmm....a number of issues here...where to begin ?

1 tree preservation orders apply to tree growth in a specific location not to the individual exiisting tree ... applications to remove unsuitably large forest trees close to buildings will nearly always be granted if accompanied by an undertaking to replant a smaller more suitable replacement tree.

2 pollarding is indeed an ancient and worthy practice...its actually coppicing on a stick when herds of cattle wandered through woodland...its the sort of practice which should be undertaken when a subject is young and carried out at regular intervals of 3 ,5 or 7 years or so depending on species and material required .

3 " lopping " is a term of no arboricultural standing or value despite what any tree - surgeon may claim ... if a tree's canopy is so large its causing problems then just one cut needs to be done very very near to the ground and a more suitable replacement planted . this is distinct from drastcally reducing a tree's crown then returning the following growing season and reducing the many many weak resulting new growths ,called water shoots , to just one per main stem...this secondary important treatment is almost never never carried out.

4 the problems a tree's root system can cause to a building are mainly related to the surrounding soil's water content ... on certain shrinkable clay soils the removal of the tree causes an expansion of the soil which no force on earth can stop ..potentially lifting a building's foundations up in the air...surveyors on behalf of building societies usually recommend removal of large trees close to a potential sale which a tree surgeon is happy to do but if this is really nessesary it should be carried out gradually over 2 or 3 growing seasons gradually reducing the tree's canopy in order to allow the soil time to adjust.

interesting thread though