Soil Heave question?

[stevelucocq]

Hi thanks for everyone views on this as its all good. Just to give a bit of scope I am writing a tree condition report on 3 Cupressus macrocarpa trees protected under a area TPO. I am not writing a report on soil heave or any structural implication on the property from these trees. I wanted to make sure that if I recommend for any of these trees to be removed then there would be no potential problems to the property. On this case I have decided that a sample soil test should be conducted by a trained professional before tree removal to determine if shrinkable clay soils are present. If identified then a structural engineer should be consulted. What I did not want to do is recommend this soil sampling test in all cases if it’s not required.

[Paul Barton]

Ah, that's a bit different then!

 

TBH if anything I would say you have done over and above what is needed. Arguably you could have just used a caveat stating that issues of heave and subsidence were beyond the scope of your report. But I say good on you for being thorough - as long as you still made good money on the report!

[arbclimber]

Hi thanks for everyone views on this as its all good. Just to give a bit of scope I am writing a tree condition report on 3 Cupressus macrocarpa trees protected under a area TPO. I am not writing a report on soil heave or any structural implication on the property from these trees. I wanted to make sure that if I recommend for any of these trees to be removed then there would be no potential problems to the property. On this case I have decided that a sample soil test should be conducted by a trained professional before tree removal to determine if shrinkable clay soils are present. If identified then a structural engineer should be consulted. What I did not want to do is recommend this soil sampling test in all cases if it’s not required.

 

Now you tell us.

 

Hope you understood my points though mate, I wasn't saying YOU shouldn't be doing it, just asking if Arb consultants generally should be.

[Bundle 2]

Presumably then Steve, you have an opinion as to what level and extent the sample needs to cover..ie depth etc....So then, what is a "Trained Professional"? Trained to what degree and in what discipline?

Arguably, saying it is beyond the scope of the report may be the realistic option....Im jus'messin' with ya' mate!

[arbclimber]

Presumably then Steve, you have an opinion as to what level and extent the sample needs to cover..ie depth etc....So then, what is a "Trained Professional"? Trained to what degree and in what discipline?

Arguably, saying it is beyond the scope of the report may be the realistic option....Im jus'messin' with ya' mate!

 

 

Arb consultants- 'Skilled or Semi-Skilled'

 

Discuss!

 

Sorry, couldn't resist. We certainly dont need another of those:lol:

[Andy Clark]

Gents, i'm sor to say it, but this is starting to sound a bit pointless really.....

 

I mean, surely as Arb's - consultant level or not, are we not "Amenity Tree Professionals"?? Therefore well within the remit of our relevant experince/knowledge level, to offer an "opinion" (for want of a better word) on matters that deal with said Amenity Trees?

 

Surely you only have to look to the ethos of the process' and principles laid down in BS 5837 - ie, the tree man deals with the trees, the architect deals with the design, the engineer deals with.... blah blah blah, to realise that all relevant specialists in their field, in an ideal world, should be able to work together and pool their relevant resources?

 

With that being the case, why is this any different?

[Bundle 2]

Gents, i'm sor to say it, but this is starting to sound a bit pointless really.....

 

I mean, surely as Arb's - consultant level or not, are we not "Amenity Tree Professionals"?? Therefore well within the remit of our relevant experince/knowledge level, to offer an "opinion" (for want of a better word) on matters that deal with said Amenity Trees?

 

Surely you only have to look to the ethos of the process' and principles laid down in BS 5837 - ie, the tree man deals with the trees, the architect deals with the design, the engineer deals with.... blah blah blah, to realise that all relevant specialists in their field, in an ideal world, should be able to work together and pool their relevant resources?

 

With that being the case, why is this any different?

 

Im not sure I follow Andy. I dont agree as I see it but you may have read something else into the thread.

The two posts previous to yours were an attempt at humour really.

What does seem obvious to me however is that the report will have Steve's name and number on it. Should the client wish to seek clarification with respect issues beyond the report then it would appear plausable that the arborist would be contacted in this regard.

Equally obvious however seems the notion that to keep the report simple and not to stir up grey issues such as plasticity and qualified and trained without quantification of any or all of these things serves only to complicate matters beyond comprehension. Hence, and I hope you are not taking offence Steve as your concientious attitude is to be applauded, it has been suggested that rather than complicate things, the arb needs to both recognise when and where their professional opinion is a matter of, well, professionalism and so stand by their appraisal of the remit and its implications and simply say..."Not for this report" ... rather than run the gauntlet of caveat, explanations and other arse covering "poppycock" in the misguided belief that it is helpful or neccessary. It isnt.

Thats "pointless" as I see it... Sorry if this seems a tad blunt old chap!

 

Now I must away and watch our beloved leader make a total pratt of himself in the debate...

[Paul Barton]

It sounds like you agree with Andy then Bundle2 - if I am understanding you both right. An arb should be confident it his/her ability as an Arb - not as an engineer, architect etc....

 

Stick within the remit of the report (which should be defined before you start), comment on things you are confident about but leave non-arb technical issues to other professionals.

 

We all know how annoying it is when architects or building surveyors make generalisations or recommendations about trees that are ill-informed. It works both ways!

[Asplen]

A tree consultant should have the knowledge and the skills to extract a soil sample, perform a plasticity index analysis and draw a meaningful conclusion from it.

 

What consultants can and should be able to do is label soils as likely to shrink, or not.

The question of "damage" to structures is the remit of a structural engineer, not arborists/arboriculturalists.

[arbclimber]

From what I can make out it seems like everyone now agrees. Happy days.