Paul Barton

Yes - but that's also the flaw if you have a simplified method for complex processes. If the architect can't even take the plan seriously what chance have you got convincing them to read the report? To be fair to architects they have a lot more constraints to consider than just trees...light, utilities, access, terrain, drainage and much more I'd imagine.

Start threads like this and then resume banging your head on a wall?

Thanks for chipping in Tony. I agree with you but am cynical (realistic?!) about how much of the report gets read! Isn't there always a danger that the architect/developer just views the pretty coloured trees on the plan and begins eliminating them from there, starting with dark reds and moving on to greys then blues? I guess it's not our fault if people don't bother to read what is written down though....

Great comments, thanks Jaime. I didn't really intend for the thread to discuss specific sites, just wanted to give an example but it may not have helped!

Interesting point Scott, and you are right about the amount of re-development of relatively young sites. Perhaps because the planning system made so many failures in the 70s and 80s...hopefully it will work better for new developments now?! Either way, to use my assumption on the lifespan of the development in order to help choose which trees to retain seems to be stretching the arb's remit a bit.

Quite. The clue is in the title isn't it: 'recommendations'. I realise that you can write anything you want in a report so long as you can justify it. What prompted the thread was just the recent experience of working with another arb that has a slightly different approach. Ditto. It does, thanks Scott. As it happens the Birches I looked at where 650mm DBH and 20 metres tall - lovely trees but in my opinion unlikely to exceed 20 years further.

For me this is another sticking point. I looked at a site yesterday where the best trees were mature Silver Birch. In terms of amenity value they were the most significant trees, but given their relatively short lifespans when compared to the surrounding young Oaks and even Sycamores I didn't feel able to award them a higher retention category. What's particularly odd about this is that TPOs are often applied the other way round - on fully mature trees that have a relatively short-term expected contribution. I do get, and agree with the concept that the planning process should aim to secure long-term benefits for the site but this often conflicts with the present realty of the current visual impact. I think the 2012 BS just re-names the Tree Constraints Plan as 'Tree Survey Plan' now...surely a plan that has the canopy spreads and RPAs of each tree is essentially still a constraints plan

Ok, not strictly a legal issue but this part of the forum seems relevant to the planning process... I have recently started doing some work with another arboriculturist and we have discovered that we have a slightly different approach in categorising trees on potential development sites. It has got me thinking and re-evaluating my approach - I thought it would be useful to find out how others view it. The 2012 BS states: "the tree survey should be completed and made available to designers prior to and/or independently of any specific proposals for development" (4.4.1.1). My understanding of this section is that the tree survey should be an objective excercise - the trees should be considered on their own merits, and in the absence of any knowledge of development proposals, in their current context. i.e. are the trees in good condition and do they make a positive contribution to the landscape as it is? But then in section 4.4.2.2 the BS says: Individual trees, groups of trees and woodlands should be assessed for their quality and benefits within the context of the proposed development, in a transparent, understandable and systematic way. The quality of each tree ...shall be recorded by allocating it to one of four categories. To me this seems contradictory and confusing. So, for example, lets say we are surveying an overgrown plot of land in a residential area. The trees on the site are sycamore, hawthorn and birch - say 5-10 metres tall and around 10-15 years old. They are self-sown trees, growing vigorously and likely to do so for at least 20, maybe 40 years if left alone. To my mind many of these trees could conceivably be categorised as 'B' trees; moderate value trees in their current context. After all, there is nothing wrong with them per se - they have no serious defects and are a long life expectancy. But should these trees really be considered as a material constraint? After all, they are merely young self-sown trees - and probably not 'significant' enough to pose a serious site constraint surely? The table in 4.5 gives a little hint in this direction: the words "unremarkable trees of very limited merit" in category C. But - very little merit in what context? I am always aware that much of what is written in BS5837 reports goes unread (perhaps I am under-selling some tree officers?). My experience suggests that most readers quickly flick through the report and head straight for the tree survey/constraints plan - if there are lots of green and blue trees then beware, but grey trees can go! So, how do you approach using the BS5837 categories? Are you happy with how it works or is the method just too blunt an instrument?

Hmm, I guess you must be right. The form and bark didn't look right for me...perhaps I'm not used to seeing them in a non-woodland context (excuses, excuses.....) I'm off to look for a new job...

Really? Put my out of my misery then!

OK, this fella has got me stumped. Can anybody shed any light? (please don't tell me it's something really obvious:blushing:). At first I thought it may be Quercus castaneifolia but the form of the tree doesn't fit and these leaves look a bit too broad and the teeth are finer. These leaves are only just flushed mind you, so their colour and size may not be fully appreciated now. In an attempt to see it in full leaf I checked google streetview - that almost looks like there are chestnuts in the canopy but the bark is nothing like Sweet chestnut! You can see the form and bark at this link: https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Bush+Street,+Walsall&hl=en&ll=52.571954,-2.035894&spn=0.001252,0.003661&sll=52.612742,-1.991594&sspn=0.010006,0.02929&oq=bu+Street,+Walsall&hnear=Bush+St,+Walsall,+United+Kingdom&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=52.571954,-2.035894&panoid=uqUJkGdyg2ytXNZrxn4cog&cbp=12,225.88,,0,-13.24

I'm interested in this Tony - have you used a fractometer to ascertain wood strength? In my experience (which is mostly academic with regards to the fractometer:blushing:) the readings given are highly variable even along a single core. More fundamentally, I think it can be difficult to know how to use the information gained...the moment of the core breaking is measured as a 'fractometer unit' which should be compared to tables published by the inventor. When I have used one the readings I have got where substantially different from those in the table...and I wondered how reliable the published values were for a "standard" tree of that species. Sorry, slight derail from the thread...thanks to the OP for bringing a good real-life example of a tricky tree management issue. All good learning fodder.

What's the boring secret? I'm with santander and they are a bit poop.

Not that I remember!

I like the mini-log cabin....I'm looking to build a little cabin office in my garden soon but I'm not sure how practical the curved walls would be on this. Cool though!

...but nice for those of us not on the farcebook.

Amen to that.

Hmmm, not exactly but I'd estimate about 3 weeks.

We sent one for calibration last year - it also needed a refurb apparently. I wasn't around when it was purchased originally but you'd hope the seller of these items would make clear the annual costs for calibration...£500 per year is no joke.

What investment? Are you thinking about buying one now?

I don't know of anyone that would rent one out without an operator. Would you be better off paying someone that has one to do the scans and report for you? Whereabouts are you?

Have you tried AEMG in Redditch? They are often looking for staff, especially with the barrelling season starting soon.

I remember that ridiculous contraption :eek:

I give up.

If the main failure has already happened and you can't see more structural problems it should be ok to stay. It looks like it's in a sheltered spot amongst other trees?