Amelanchier

As per title. Just interested in what systems are actually required, how much it costs, how much work might be involved and who is best to assess it? Google is predictably poor with regard to Arb specific information. Cheers.

I agree.

I think Mike's stance is perfectly reasonable.

As normal, is suspect the answer is somewhere in the middle ground (and our legal system rarely does definitive)! The arguement seems to be about the technicalities of law vs its realities. But just because the technical has yet to become reality doesn't mean that it can't. All precedents were exactly that - hands up who wants to set their own? There are generally two offences that are pursued if unauthorised work is undertaken to a protected tree. One for the tree owner in permitting the work and one for the contractor in doing it. Anyone involved in either offence can be charged with it. So yes, the bloke on the saw can be found liable. After all - he is the bloke on the saw, the offence doesn't actually happen without him. Ultimately, legal action follows the money and the chance of success, LPA prosecutors tend to pick their fights. Also the courts will take the position of the individual into account and ask whether it would be reasonable for that individual to have known an offence was being committed. Note that this does not absolve the individual, as ignorance of the law is no defence, but might lessen the severity of the decision. Also, because you can be found guilty simply if your negligence contributes to the offence, doing nothing isn't always an option. There is case precendent for using the breakdown of the chain of command as a defence. A contractor was aquitted on appeal because the court found that his subcontractor had acted independently after express instructions. I've dealt with this approach on a development site - I suspect it make the liklihood of going after the employee greater. (If you can find them!) Furthermore, its entirely possible for the courts to passs sentence at different scales. They might find a small fine for the operative and a larger one for the employer (and an even large one of a ltd company). So, what's the probability of the guy on the saw getting prosecuted? If you do you own double checks (remembering that in my district TPO can be made, signed/sealed and served in 45 minutes. Hmmmm, how long ago did your boss check? ) prior to commencement - zero. Don't do the checks - Greater than zero. Life is a continual risk assessment. Your acceptable threshold is likely to be different to mine. Do the benefits of not double checking outweigh the consequences? Not for me.

Or perhaps, like me - they missed the thread first time round because its buried in the usual turgid dross about chipper envy and firewood retail backbiting. Incidentally, you're the one hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. Would you like your username changed to your real name so that your vapid comments could at least be attributable to you in the real world?

I agree - thanks for logging on. I wish it were in better circumstances!

I need a life. Meanwhile; Tuesday Jim Smith of the Forestry Commission kicked off the morning session, discussing the position of the FC in relation to the wider strategic goals of the Coalition Govt. He explained that the implementation of the current Strategy for England's Trees, Woods and Forests (SETWF) is on ice pending the ongoing reforms to the planning system legislation (and even the PPS documents) as directed by the Coalition Govt. Having been sad enough to have read the Lib-Con agreement just after it was issued, I am continually amazed by the furore in the news media as each of the policies are announced – its all in the agreement and has been available since May! Richard Nicholson gave us an inside view into the mechanics of the reality of trying to implement the laudable goals of tree strategies. After describing a number of techniques used as leverage with reticent councillors (such as allowing them to realise the actual results of their preference for one aspect of work as a reduction in the capacity to complete the rest), he discussed the idea that proactive and reactive tree work should be seen as a continuum (or perhaps an analogue) rather than a black/white (binary?) process. He also noted something that I’d realised a while back – that spending resources dealing with the vocal minority of residents represents extremely bad value for money for those residents who don’t complain! Giorgio Catena presented an overview of the application of Thermal Imaging to arboriculture; indicating its role within tree management and definitively defending its application. Using a number of case studies, he maintained that no specialist software is needed to interpret the images and vociferously distanced his method from that presented within well known UK proprietary systems (who he reminded us - were not representing thermal imaging at the conference). As he noted, he is not a salesman! This should be food for thought given Giorgio’s familiarity with the technology and standing within the international thermal imaging community. (Giorgio, if I have any of that wrong I’m sure you will let me know! ) Dave Dowson explained some of the upcoming changes to arboricultural education as we know it - in short, the modularisation and standardisation (within the QCF) of the RFS Certificate, AA Tech Cert and the RFS Diploma. He also warned of our industries apathy toward supporting its qualifications, revealing that of all the LANTRA subject areas, we are renowned for our indifference! It was also pointed out that costs can be expected to rise as the various bodies involved seek to pass their own growing burden onto the end user. David Nowak gave us an introduction to iTree; free US forestry service software that can be used to calculate both the structural value of trees (i.e., what the physical material is worth) as well as the functional value (what that physical material can do – cool surfaces, intercept precipitation, remove airbourne pollutants). After running us through the sampling methodology and summarising the data cruching he revealed that we might see a UK beta version (albeit limited) out this autumn after the creases have been ironed out with the UK trial team. Adam Hollis and Charles Cowap followed on from this theme of valuation by introducing the newly published RICS guidance note “Valuation of trees for amenity and related non-timber uses”. Catchy huh? This is a deceptively important step in tree valuation as it represents an international standard and helps to put valuation into the wider context of a chartered Surveyors remit. Interestingly, it seems that the courts (Bryant & Anor v Macklin [2005] EWCA Civ 762 – I’m too good to you all ) have recently dismissed the replacement cost approach (as favoured by CAVAT) in favour of lower values based around property costs and ‘willingness-to-pay’ (a.k.a. WTP). I haven’t got round to reading the case yet but a precedent is a precedent… You never know - I might have wednesday sorted by next year!

Can all relevant members remember to attack the arguements not the individuals please - if this gets too personal I'll lock it up.

I share your disappointment in others. But hey, thanks for the ID.

I think the issue is more about pulling that out of the exemptions and bringing those borderline trees into the application procedure. I'm more than happy to see it go!

I think its a reasonable move - define dying!

Damn right. Its better than yours. I could teach you, but I'd have to charge...

Like my man Dirty Harry says, "A mans got to know his limitations." I was reaching a bit for genus so I'll be damned if I'm posting a species, especially with those things. How about this then (with full Linnean/ICBN honours!) Fistulina hepatica (Schaeff.) With.

Peter Annett (a.k.a. the lone Govt. Arboriculturalist) has posted a link on UKTC to a consultation paper on changes to the TPO legislation. Most of this is streamlining and is unlikely to affect people outside of local Govt. but hey - its nice to be asked right? Heres the link: Tree preservation orders: proposals for streamlining - Consultation - Planning, building and the environment - Communities and Local Government Oh that's weird. It worked first time...

Guess I might have to get out of the office now then... I'll go with this to start - Clavulinopsis spp. (I'm lazy).

How about one of these with hydraulic saw attachments...

Schadenfreude Incidentally Stuart, I would like to congratulate you on the best thread title of the year.

Presumbly, you meant opinions on splicing rather than opinions on the legal framework? After all, every law must be interpreted in terms of its requirements and implications, therefore opinions on meaning and implementation will neccessarily differ. I reckon if you reasoned well enough, you could add the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 to your list...

or; 3. Make an application under the TPO to fell the tree... If you are considering option 2. why not draft a informal proposal and request comments from the tree officer?

Saw this the other day; Receding gums: What ails Australia's iconic trees? - environment - 16 September 2010 - New Scientist Cruel to be kind? Imagine writing that as a spec at the end of a report.

As promised in another post, here are my summaries/thoughts of the content of the 2010 AA Conference. It’s a lot of info to process and I can’t promise a complete picture but I hope you’ll get the general idea and maybe those other members who attended can fill in the blanks. I can’t think of a more imaginative way of displaying this so chronologically by speaker will have to do – they’re not all represented, I didn’t go to everything and I tend to be more interested in policy/strategy/legislation so whilst I’ve tried to be objective I reserve the right to fail! I’ll post these separately during the week. It’s too much to dump in one go without stifling discussion and I have some proper work to do in between! Monday Phil Askew from the Olympic Delivery Authority started us off by showing us a glimpse of the future Olympic parks and discussed their two staged masterplanned structure (during the games and the proposed legacy designs). IMO a worthwhile project ticking some serious green infrastructure boxes – seasonal wet woodland in north London! As much of the site was dominated by Knotweed (and other industrial residues), there was some hints at the technical soil management that has had to be undertaken (ok perhaps that was just me that found that interesting!). Martin Kelly of the TDAG (Trees and Design Action Group) raised the thorny issue of canopy cover assessments and discussed why our urban sprawl seems to have closed up the space available for urban trees. One thing that struck me as we looked at some example images was that Victorian terraces with back to back gardens provide significant biodiversity corridors – perhaps our current vogue for variable plot size and layout misses this simple opportunity? Martin went on to highlight TDAG lobbying progress including references to their guidance that had been made within the London Plan (which impacts upon the LDF polices taken up be the various London boroughs), involvement with the new RIBA publication on valuation and representation at the European Landscape Convention. As we at the coal face (or laminated plywood desk…) are fairly detached from these kinds of advances, it’s good to hear about actual advancement of the tree agenda! Dave Lofthouse (no not Dean!) gave a short overview of Oak Processionary Moth (OPM) and pointed out something fairly obvious that hadn’t occurred to me. Because of the limited range of OPM and it’s slow (yet arithmetically increasing) spread – there is a real opportunity for eradication. However, the current combination of LA and FC seem to be implementing controls under the weaker plant health legislation instead of the more powerful public health tools available. Keith Sacre of Barchams called for more industry involvement (which was to become and ongoing theme throughout the conference) with the embryonic BS:8545 currently titled ‘From nursery to independence in the landscape’. For those who haven’t heard about it, this is intended to bridge the gap between the specification or production of trees and getting them to survive in the ground without constant attention. To that end, Keith suggests using a different language to define the process – instead of describing the end goal as ‘establishment’; we should be looking to talk about independence. The former is too vague, whereas the latter is definable. I guess Keith is anti-establishment… As previously mentioned by the eminent Mr Humphries earlier this week, Schwarze presented his recent research on the use of Tricoderma spp. This involved a breakneck tour of many subjects that probably could have made entire lecture on their own and really fired up the imagination (you would have loved it Tony!) After looking at improving strawberry yields by inoculation beehives and how infected timber makes better sounding Violins, Schwarze discussed a recent paper in the AA journal – specific strains of Trichoderma spp. can prevent colonisation of pruning wounds by decay organisms by either parasitism, producing antibiotic compounds (& VOCs) or simply outcompeting them. However, due to the levels of investment need to satisfy European and international standards on bio-controls (somewhere in the millions), our market is unlikely to see a product. Finally, Philip van Wassener took us through the Canadian experience of urban forest management and the approaches used. He reiterated the fundamental need for urban tree managers to calculate their canopy cover and to identify targets for improvement, including calculating the maximum possible cover based on all the planting sites. He pointed out that as a significant proportion of trees were in private ownership, it was hard to get private owners on board with the management regime if the council’s management and treatment of trees was substandard. An interesting point that translates to many experiences of LA interaction over here.

Obviously, if I don't recieve a PM in a reasonable timeframe - I will delete this thread.

As a member of the ISA Certification committee I can speak for Dan (the official liaison officer) in a limited capacity. Like Andy above I'm sure there has been a misunderstanding - there is no academic prerequisite and you have obviously exceeded the experience requirement. if you PM me your details, I will riase it with Dan as soon as he returns from the States.

I also made a promise to a certain Italian academic so I need to be precise with my words!

Thanks guys, it'll need fleshing out for certain. I tend to only take notes that interest me and we're a broad church here.