Do.....

[woodyguy]

They don't produce woody tissue so they're not a tree.

[Chris at eden]

Whilst I agree they are not what a forester would call a tree I would still include them. 5837 is not about timber production, its about assessing the impact on visual amenity of the site caused by the development in terms of landscape/trees.

 

Alternatively, you could just ask the LPA if they want them included, they may be happy for them to be plotted as a group.

 

Cheers,

[Mark Bolam]

The word tree is not defined in law and the closest thing in planning terms would be from the TPO guidance. That is anything which would normally be considered to be a tree, according to the high court. Its the same reason why TPO's prevent lopping and topping as appose to pruning as the later is not defined in law but there is some old highways law that discusses lopping to clear the highway. I digress!!!

 

It seems the question is do you consider it to be a tree? Personally I have never seen a TPO'd palm tree so I would use that as the indicator. I would always include them on a 5837 survey though but in reality they would probably be cat C.

 

In what way does a TPO prevent lopping and topping but not pruning?

 

You still need consent to prune a TPO'd tree.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[Chris at eden]

In what way does a TPO prevent lopping and topping but not pruning?

 

You still need consent to prune a TPO'd tree.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

 

 

The original question was is a palm tree, in fact a tree. That is what my answer was in relation to, wording. I'm not saying you don't need consent to prune, just that the wording in law says something different. My real point is that it about time someone defined the word prune or tree in law. That was all I was saying really. The regs were reviewed in 2012 and they didn't bother to address this, why!!!

 

Sorry if this caused some confusion.

[Mark Bolam]

Ah, with you.

 

An old boy I worked with used a novel way of differentiating between trees and shrubs.

He reckoned if it could kill you if it fell on you it was a tree. If it couldn't it was a shrub!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[Jon Heuch]

The original question was is a palm tree, in fact a tree. My real point is that it about time someone defined the word prune or tree in law. why!!!

 

I started to write a paper to answer the question "What is a tree?" once. It started with a quote:

 

“...answers are best found when the question itself is well put. ‘What is...?’ doesn’t normally provide a good prompt. It usually leads you headlong into hair-splitting disputes about the meanings of words”

 

Bellos D (2011) Is that a Fish in Your Ear? The Amazing Adventure of Translation. Penguin Books. 390 pps.

 

The quote gives you some idea of the quagmire you will get in when you try to define the word "tree".

 

If you want to explore where the question "What is a tree?" leads you I suggest you look at Philip Wilson's Arb Terminology book or the recent short snippet he published in Arb News (not the most recent one but the one before) which had a What is a tree? title I think.

 

Is a palm tree a tree? It depends how you define the word "tree", doesn't it? It clearly is in common parlance - you really would get yourself in knots if you tried to argue it was not. If however you want to define a tree as a woody plant, you need to define what you mean by wood and then assume that your palm tree doesn't produce wood.....which I am led to believe is one of these assumptions that is now not considered strictly true (some palms do actually have secondary thickening....which produces wood.......do you see the slippery slope above the quagmire, yet?)

 

Jon

[slack ma girdle]

I started to write a paper to answer the question "What is a tree?" once. It started with a quote:

 

“...answers are best found when the question itself is well put. ‘What is...?’ doesn’t normally provide a good prompt. It usually leads you headlong into hair-splitting disputes about the meanings of words”

 

Bellos D (2011) Is that a Fish in Your Ear? The Amazing Adventure of Translation. Penguin Books. 390 pps.

 

The quote gives you some idea of the quagmire you will get in when you try to define the word "tree".

 

If you want to explore where the question "What is a tree?" leads you I suggest you look at Philip Wilson's Arb Terminology book or the recent short snippet he published in Arb News (not the most recent one but the one before) which had a What is a tree? title I think.

 

Is a palm tree a tree? It depends how you define the word "tree", doesn't it? It clearly is in common parlance - you really would get yourself in knots if you tried to argue it was not. If however you want to define a tree as a woody plant, you need to define what you mean by wood and then assume that your palm tree doesn't produce wood.....which I am led to believe is one of these assumptions that is now not considered strictly true (some palms do actually have secondary thickening....which produces wood.......do you see the slippery slope above the quagmire, yet?)

 

Jon

 

Add a few word in latin, and you can really baffle us.

 

I work on the assumption that if my kids look at it and call it a tree, then it is probably a tree.

[Chris at eden]

I started to write a paper to answer the question "What is a tree?" once. It started with a quote:

 

“...answers are best found when the question itself is well put. ‘What is...?’ doesn’t normally provide a good prompt. It usually leads you headlong into hair-splitting disputes about the meanings of words”

 

Bellos D (2011) Is that a Fish in Your Ear? The Amazing Adventure of Translation. Penguin Books. 390 pps.

 

The quote gives you some idea of the quagmire you will get in when you try to define the word "tree".

 

If you want to explore where the question "What is a tree?" leads you I suggest you look at Philip Wilson's Arb Terminology book or the recent short snippet he published in Arb News (not the most recent one but the one before) which had a What is a tree? title I think.

 

Is a palm tree a tree? It depends how you define the word "tree", doesn't it? It clearly is in common parlance - you really would get yourself in knots if you tried to argue it was not. If however you want to define a tree as a woody plant, you need to define what you mean by wood and then assume that your palm tree doesn't produce wood.....which I am led to believe is one of these assumptions that is now not considered strictly true (some palms do actually have secondary thickening....which produces wood.......do you see the slippery slope above the quagmire, yet?)

 

Jon

 

 

Good points I’m sure Jon, but it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done if we are to move forward as an industry, a trade, and a profession. Not saying it’s easy, as if it was someone would have already done it. I for one would be really interested to read your paper if you finished it.

 

Arb is a bit of a joke when you compare it with other professions in my opinion. Engineers have designed and built the international space station, physicists are attempting to perfect nuclear fusion, and yet Arb’s can’t decide what a tree is!!!! Not good in my opinion.

 

It’s not as if the question doesn’t come up in conversation, I’ve been asked dozens of times by clients what it is that makes a tree a tree. It’s not great to say it’s not defined in law. I had a gardener who trained at Kew on one occasion tell me I couldn’t TPO some newly planted trees as they were not classed as trees until they reached 30ft. What is that about!!! Try telling his client though, the response is, he worked at Kew, he must know more than the TO.

[woodyguy]

Hazel isn't defined as a tree because it doesn't grow to above 6 metres (generally) with a single trunk. Tree vs shrub is another hazy area. I grow tree ferns and they can grow many metres high but I certainly wouldn't call them a tree.