Paul Barton

On 15/09/2023 at 21:25, Engineeringalltheway said:

the conditions in the planning contradict each other - one condition states to follow the tree report which states do not lower ground level. And another states to match the approved drawing which clearly shows the the ground being lowered. 
 

as stated the contractor has already done the dig. I don’t think the tree will be affected as in my research  I have read maximum 20% root area can be damaged without damaging the tree, in this case it’s approx 8%.
 

I’m just not sure what the penalty is on a case like this, your help will be much appreciated 

If the conditions contradict each other then they don't meet the five tests for planning conditions as set out in National Planning Policy, that conditions should be:

35 minutes ago, LynherTraining said:

Have you tried someone on this list

 

https://www.bali.org.uk/lisscscs-2019/online-rolo-course/

 

Yes.  No joy!

Can anyone point me towards a training provider that can offer the one day ROLO H&S course for operatives before the end of March?  Online delivery preferable.  

Bump! 😀

What ball park are we looking at here Paul? Could be of interest, in what we are doing. As picus seems beyond the budget. K

19 hours ago, AJStrees said:

Thank you for that. Well that is quite interesting indeed. How does the Fakopp do compared to Picus, have you had experience with both? I mean from the image it looks like it does a pretty decent job. 

I have engaged a consultant with a Picus in the past and it did a good job I think. I like this system though - it's quite portable, fairly waterproof and provides useful information.  I couldn't tell you much about the different algorithms each system uses to provide the tomogram images but the Fakopp is a useful tool for me.  It also helped that it is considerably less expensive!  It has some helpful software for mapping the crown area and calculating wind-load on the trunk too.

10 minutes ago, AJStrees said:

What system are you using there Paul? Looks a bit different to the usual picus I have seen. 

Hello.  It's a Fakopp Arborsonic.  For interest, here is the tomogram image. 

Big ol' Pseudoinonotus dryadeus on Holm oak in Malvern. 

I’ve helped clients with a few of these scenarios. Typically the LPA make a woodland TPO to protect all trees of whatever size and age in perpetuity. In my opinion they are a misuse of the legislation.

Would be interesting to see what the situation is with your site.

I will vouch for Charlie as being a decent bloke that runs a good outfit!  I am sure he would be a great person to work for.

Good evening all. 

I am looking for an experienced arboricultural consultant to join our team at Barton Hyett Associates.  We are currently based in Worcestershire but are re-locating to a larger rural office in Gloucestershire (near Northleach) in September.

Our work is a mix of planning/development related tree surveys, tree condition and risk surveys for rural estates, schools, universities etc, and detailed tree assessments using tomography, resistance drilling etc.  We are a friendly, easy-going but hard working team and there appears to be lots of work on the horizon so we are on the lookout for a highly-skilled consultant to grow their career with us.

We are offering a competitive salary (likely £30-35k but will depend on the calibre of the right person!), company pension scheme, CPD programme and flexible working arrangements.

You can read more about the role here, or if you'd like to speak to me about it send me a message with your number and I will call you back.

I used to work with Josh a fair bit when I was on the tools and in Bristol.  I can vouch for him being a top bloke ?

There's a handy new app available on Android and iOS developed by Tim Moya Associates.  Search for 'TMA fungi' and it should appear in the Google play store / Apple App store.

Anyone tried the 'Itiwit' inflatable kayaks from Decathlon?  They look pretty good.

https://www.decathlon.co.uk/2-man-inflatable-kayak-2017-green-id_8387561.html

It's easy to call them whingers but if they are retired people that want to sit out and enjoy their garden then the shade cast by these trees is a genuine 'dis-benefit' to them.

I can see why the tree officer won't cut them down as this could set a precedent for other people that back on to other trees along this road. And a reduction would be pointless as the crown density would be the same in a year or two.

Maybe the council could agree to the works if the complainants are willing to pay for the felling and replacement planting of a new tree?

Forgot to say, I also now mostly label up the topo plan on the iPad too using an app called DWG Fastview. It works pretty well so no more paper flapping about on a clipboard! 

Hi Nathan,

If you haven’t already, it would be worth searching the forum for old threads about this.

As you may already know, there are some off the shelf package softwares that will enable you to do what you need but it depends on the output you require - I.e a CAD plan or an Excel spreadsheet etc. 

I just use an iPad with a pre-formatted spreadsheet in Numbers and then send that to my CAD technician with a copy of a marked up topo plan.  

Check out Pear Technology software for an alternative. 

It’ll only take 10 mins to appeal for non-determination. 

Appeal! You know you want to! 

Fantastic! Loved having a fly about on the 3D model. The resolution of the main stem and branch framework seems pretty good. What’s the minimum diameter of twigs picked up? 

Love the black and white photo of the trees before they were enclosed by the woodland - another reminder that tree time blows my perception of time out of the water! 

What do you see as the key uses for this kind of technology David? 

32 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

Playing devils advocate.....

 

The Cavat system has a couple of input values that require the surveyor to have a high level of arboricultural knowledge;

 

 Functional Value: This is a 2-part assessment, in which a professional arborist assesses the completeness and health of the crown against what would be expected of a perfectly grown tree with the measured trunk diameter. For this evaluation, an overall standard depreciation of 60% is proposed, based on previous surveys in Sheffield and elsewhere, as a conservative figure.

 

Adjusted Value: This is again a 2-part assessment, reflecting the positive and negative contributions arising from species characteristics as expressed in the location. Again, it is an assessment requiring detailed arboricultural expertise; therefore, a standard depreciation of 90% has been used, as a conservative depreciation under this heading

 

If I'm reading this right, the input figure have been adjusted based on previous surveys and due to lack of qualification of the surveyors? 

 

 

Good point Gary, but I think he is saying that as the surveyors for this CAVAT report were non-arb trained volunteers, instead of expecting them to make a sound judgment he just applied standard depreciations.  It's quite a broad-brushed approach that obviously limits the confidence in the final valuations given.

However, as a starter for ten using a respected published method, it's not bad.

Congratulations.  What's the role?

I’d have a stab at Phaeolus schweinitzii 

4 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

I'm going to give an alternative perspective (otherwise known as disagreeing).

 

Naturally trees have a balance between the below ground and above ground parts, commonly called the root-stoot ratio. The absolute value of the ratio doesn't matter, and I am sure it changes gradually over the lifespan of the tree. The top of the tree puts gases and energy in, the bottom puts water and nutrients in, and the two parts mature together.

 

Cut some roots away, and the tree will immediately try and replace them. Likewise pollarding, remove crown and the tree will bounce back vigorously. The only constant measure of the balance that would be achieved naturally is the stem diameter. And by simplistic methods, this is used to determine the root protection area. The stem is the main plumbing for the tree, up and down. BS5837 assumes its cross sectonal area is proportional to the root protection area. Pollarding doesn't reduce the rooting area, it just forces a new crown to start growing. Reducing the rooting area at the same time as pollarding may reduce the overall growth rate of the tree, but it won't cause the stem to shrink. It will just make the tree unwell and unable to regenerate a crown. So you won't have a pollard, you'll have an ailing stick. A full BS5837 12x RPA is in my view needed to make pollarded trees viable, to constantly try and regain the root-shoot ratio. Push it too far by removing RPA and you are well into the area of not knowing of controlling what willl happen. The stem needs a certain amount of energy in to maintain its older wood as well as create new wood.  BS5837 defines RPA in terms of maintaining viability. It doesn't say keeping alive.

 

That's my view anyway. I have never reduced the RPA of a pollard.

 

All of the above is not book learning, it comes (for me) from never ever missing a chance to examine the ring growth pattern of a tree that I have seen standing before it was felled. Newly pollarded trees do not reduce their annual increments, if anything they increase them, with vessel-rich wood rather than fibrous-rich. I think it is more marked in ring-porous species, but I am still observing.

 

So it depends what the objective is. If it's maintaining the tree's vitality, I'd keep the RPA (and then some). If it's sneaking something past planning, by all means try it, but I'd be telling the client that's what I was doing and not promising ongoing vitality. Read pedantically (because that's what TOs and planners seem to do) there is no clear mechanism in BS5837 to reduce the RPA, only modify it's shape. That said, one could infer that parts c and d of clause 4.6.3 anticipate changing the size rather than the shape of the RPA. I have certainly changed it on many occasions based on soil depth. It is after all an imitation of a soil volume. Deeper soil, smaller RPA.

 

As I say, much of this is based at looking at stumps of topped or pollarded trees I've been involved in removing. Te DBH is reflective most of all of potential for water uptake, and that is a reflection of rooting rather than crown. Re-pollard so of thn that that isn't true any more, and you've got a dying tree. I've seen that many times. They succumb to infection too in their weakened state.

Top class reply Julian!

One thing about the 'RPA' is that is not intended to necessarily represent the extent of roots.  Although I see some logic in the root:shoot ratio theory, it doesn't allow for those roots that perhaps by necessity due to soil conditions, track an awfully long way from the stem in order to exploit available soil moisture.  I.e. if the soil in close proximity is moist and nutritious then the tree may have a fairly compact and fibrous root morphology, but if conditions are not so good a tree will throw out exploratory roots for some distance.  We've all seen roots tracking under roads and footpaths etc.

So if the RPA can't even come close to describing the radial spread of roots, it must be more about a sufficient volume of soil that is required to sustain the tree.  As Julian says, this means that soil depth is pretty critical.  If the soil is only 50cm deep before rock, then we should all be doubling the radius of RPAs as I recall the BS5837 radial RPA is based on a 1m depth!

Going back to the original question, is it reasonable to estimate that a pollarded tree will need less soil volume than a full-crowned tree.  Well, yes I think it is but perhaps only temporarily as pollards tend to produce prolific foliage to re-instate the root-shoot ratio. Research in to heavy pruning/pollarding to reduce water demand in subsidence prone areas shows that water uptake is resumed to previous levels in just two-three years after cutting so unless a tree is pollarded very frequently to control it, presumably root activity continues.

Julian - your observations about incremental thickening of pollards is very interesting.  I don't have any stumps or cross-sections to dispute your point, but I do recall hearing a talk a few years ago from Mr Barrell where he showed some slides of some small pollards in a church yard - the assumption was they were quite young as their stems were slender but when they were felled they were found to be really quite old. Maybe a long-term regime of pollarding does reduce incremental thickening?  Or maybe those trees were just growing in poor soils and had somehow struggled on for more than a century!