5837 category

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Has anybody / would anybody apply and show more than a single Table 1 category to different parts of the same individual tree?  

 

4.5.3 For a tree to qualify under any given category,

 

4.5.4 The tree survey schedule should list which subcategory applies.

 

4.5.5 When determining the appropriate category

 

All seem to indicate "singular" tree and "singular" category.

 

I'm looking at a fairly common scenario for hereabouts where former agricultural field boundary has over mature (potentially veteran-ish) stool (Ash), which has extensive 'features' (may also be known as defects but not entirely appropriate) with semi-mature regrowth (which would at some point, no doubt, be lopped off by the farmer) but has been allowed to grow on (with some considerable, potentially unsustainable lateral growth.)     

 

Retaining the stool, which has obvious long history, but not the existing semi-mature regrowth which will grow on and fail, seems to be the obvious solution.  If the plot does convert from Ag to residential, the retention of the regrowth (and future growth) will be an obvious liability in a domestic setting.

 

So the question is....

 

Is it realistic / reasonable to allocate a C1 (impaired condition) or 2 (temporary landscape benefit) on the regrowth and a A3 (conservation / historical) on the stool?

 

Any thoughts / comments appreciated....

[Gary Prentice]

 

 

I think that it's feasible to do anything as long as you explain yourself and why you have categorised something the way that you have. (TBH I don't think anyone reads them anyway )

[Mark J]

I would say that A3 would be appropriate.  Once the tree work had been carried out they would still be A3.  You could perhaps add a note on your methodology for those particular trees.

Edited April 10, 2018 by Mark J

[benedmonds]

I would agree with Mark and it should be categorised in its highest sub-category.. 

Another issue I have, is when categorising individuals in groups; individually the trees may be rubbish and the loss of one in the group not significant, but as part of a group or feature they are important, so they might be a A2/C1..?    

[Mark J]

6 minutes ago, benedmonds said:

I would agree with Mark and it should be categorised in its highest sub-category.. 

Another issue I have, is when categorising individuals in groups; individually the trees may be rubbish and the loss of one in the group not significant, but as part of a group or feature they are important, so they might be a A2/C1..?    

I think that comes down to the scope of the survey.  You can plot individual trees of high/low value within a group.