Beech Tree - Doesn't look good

[MattyF]

You don’t side line assumed facts but you do separate them from facts.  Facts are something you observe yourself.  Assumed fact are something others tell you. So, you can state the condition of the tree as a fact.  But if someone tells you they have seen it declining for years, that is an assumed fact. If they tell you it fell on Tuesday night, that is assumed.  If you see it fall then that is a fact.  
 
i was doing the expert witness training with Bond Solon before COVID kicked in and it’s from that. They say all reports have the potential to end up in court so make them court compliant.  If you make a statement as if it’s something you know for sure and it ends up being something the neighbour told you, the barrister will love it.  They will hammer you for misrepresenting yourself and question your competence at which point it’s game over. 
 
facts, assumed facts, and opinions are all different things. 
 

Fact is though that there is a drive way and great big house now in the root zone of tree that is significantly older than them , woulda that not back it up in court... regardless... it’s a fact ?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

3 minutes ago, Chris at eden said:

You don’t side line assumed facts but you do separate them from facts.  Facts are something you observe yourself.  Assumed fact are something others tell you. So, you can state the condition of the tree as a fact.  But if someone tells you they have seen it declining for years, that is an assumed fact. If they tell you it fell on Tuesday night, that is assumed.  If you see it fall then that is a fact.  
 

i was doing the expert witness training with Bond Solon before COVID kicked in and it’s from that. They say all reports have the potential to end up in court so make them court compliant.  If you make a statement as if it’s something you know for sure and it ends up being something the neighbour told you, the barrister will love it.  They will hammer you for misrepresenting yourself and question your competence at which point it’s game over. 
 

facts, assumed facts, and opinions are all different things. 
 

That makes sense, I interpreted it as meaning you sideline assumed facts which I thought would have been a peculiar course of action in attempting to gain as full a picture as possible.  

 

I see no difficulty in attempting to gain, and assimilating, background info in order to create as full a picture as possible but I also acknowledge the importance of caveating that which is anecdotal as opposed to that which is observed.

 

"...whilst I did not 'see' the drive being laid, it was stated by the homeowner that it was done in 200X (either supported by evidence or not.)  The drive has encroached upon Y% of the RPA - a calculation which is taken from BS.   A test dig shows an excavated depth of Z made up of the following layers with a total depth of Q.  In the absence of any other indicators the decline in tree vitality since 200X to present day may be attributed to the incursion into the RPA..."

 

Red - Assumed

Green - Observed

Amber - Opinion

 

The combination of circumstantial, observed and opinion.  In this (probably overly simplistic example), the date of the unobserved seems (to me at least) to be a pretty significant factor in arriving at the opinion and the opinion would be notably lacking without it.

 

Would you consider a thread to share your thoughts if you restart your witness training?  Understand if you didn't want to of course 😂  

 

 

[RichSutherland]

I'm not sure what the root zone would be but hopefully the tree is far away enough that the house build didn't impact it. The drive is also not tarmac or anything, just stone chippings but of course I have no idea what it looked like prior to what is there currently so I am not in any way dismissing the observation that root damage has happened!

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

26 minutes ago, RichSutherland said:

I'm not sure what the root zone would be but hopefully the tree is far away enough that the house build didn't impact it. The drive is also not tarmac or anything, just stone chippings but of course I have no idea what it looked like prior to what is there currently so I am not in any way dismissing the observation that root damage has happened!

Rich, my comments were purely hypothetical rather than intended to contribute directly to your specific circumstances. Apologies for that. 

[RichSutherland]

Just now, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Rich, my comments were purely hypothetical rather than intended to contribute directly to your specific circumstances. Apologies for that. 

Ah no worries  Sorry just trying to give as much information from my side as possible - there does seem to be a very valid side discussion going on as well! 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

8 minutes ago, RichSutherland said:

Ah no worries  Sorry just trying to give as much information from my side as possible - there does seem to be a very valid side discussion going on as well! 

In reverse order, the side discussion isn’t always helpful to the originator but such situations often give rise to more in depth debate. 
 

Also often the case that a homeowner asks a question, sets the hares running, then never looks in again to see if anyone actually answered their question. 
 

There’s probably an element of the first causing the second to be fair 😂

 

I think someone summed it up quite well earlier. 
 

A ‘tree surgeon’ makes their living from reducing / removing trees. They may not always be the best source of informed, independent, objective advice. 
 

That said, a good one will tell you what they are not prepared to do and why. 
 

A not so good one may advise reduction / removal because it’s in their interest rather than yours. 

[Dan Maynard]

I'm not sure what the root zone would be but hopefully the tree is far away enough that the house build didn't impact it. The drive is also not tarmac or anything, just stone chippings but of course I have no idea what it looked like prior to what is there currently so I am not in any way dismissing the observation that root damage has happened!

You can see the driveway but don't know what they dug or indeed what heavy plant they parked on the roots. Big problem with root damage and secondary infection etc is it takes years to develop.

I had a discussion with a builder on Friday, cedar being kept on a site being developed. He mentioned bringing soil levels up round the tree which I tried my best to put him off. The lawn in your photo could have been higher or lower before, either of which not great for the tree.

In the end like everyone else said, you need a really good impartial opinion from someone who looks at the tree and the site to get all those factors weighed in, can't really be done from photos.

[RichSutherland]

6 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

In reverse order, the side discussion isn’t always helpful to the originator but such situations often give rise to more in depth debate. 
 

Also often the case that a homeowner asks a question, sets the hares running, then never looks in again to see if anyone actually answered their question. 
 

There’s probably an element of the first causing the second to be fair 😂

 

I think someone summed it up quite well earlier. 
 

A ‘tree surgeon’ makes their living from reducing / removing trees. They may not always be the best source of informed, independent, objective advice. 
 

That said, a good one will tell you what they are not prepared to do and why. 
 

A not so good one may advise reduction / removal because it’s in their interest rather than yours. 

Ah of course, I'm a guest in this house and I've found all of the information interesting and incredibly valuable - if it sparks a secondary debate then I don't mind  

 

I will absolutely get a report done and will follow the advice of the people on this thread. 

 

Thanks

[RichSutherland]

6 hours ago, Dan Maynard said:

You can see the driveway but don't know what they dug or indeed what heavy plant they parked on the roots. Big problem with root damage and secondary infection etc is it takes years to develop.

I had a discussion with a builder on Friday, cedar being kept on a site being developed. He mentioned bringing soil levels up round the tree which I tried my best to put him off. The lawn in your photo could have been higher or lower before, either of which not great for the tree.

In the end like everyone else said, you need a really good impartial opinion from someone who looks at the tree and the site to get all those factors weighed in, can't really be done from photos.

Absolutely - thanks!

[Mick Dempsey]

39 minutes ago, RichSutherland said:

Ah of course, I'm a guest in this house and I've found all of the information interesting and incredibly valuable - if it sparks a secondary debate then I don't mind  

 

I will absolutely get a report done and will follow the advice of the people on this thread. 

 

Thanks

Good idea, it would be nice if you came back to tell us what the report says and your decision.

 

It gives us a kind of closure.

 

Mick