Amelanchier

Well this is hardly a new phenomena. My district has vast area orders (now being reviewed by a very capable individual at an alarming rate) dating from the mid 1950's. Some of which were served for the very reasons you mention. As you can imagine, there are some fine trees involved.

I've given serious thought to deleting all the derails in this thread just as an experiment to see whats left. I reckon I could get it down to 5 pages.

Its just a form. Not the mendacious hammer of red tape crushing the personal liberty of some romantic notion of the english gerontocracy. It's not the grail of the pedant or a tool of iniquitous subversion by a cryptofascist ubermensch - its just a form. Fill it in, send it off, prune a tree (or not). There is no irregularity in taking a particular stance on the enforcement of a piece of legislation, the CPS does it all the time! What statutory penalty is there for a council accepting an incorrect form?! You'd just get whupped at appeal is all. The only issue I have with postcode lotteries is the term. Lotteries are random (otherwise the wouldn't be lotteries), variation of service by postcode is not random and that's usually why people are complaining about it. I am grumpy drunk.

Is this where I tie myself in knots trying to draw lines in the continuum of arb? The thread wasn't intended to debate the relationship between the practical and theorectical roles. Nor the moral serendipity of the working man. The point was to discuss how the theoretical industry is viewed by other professionals. The planner, the ecologist, the architect. I don't think we need to examine individual job titles.

Well done sir. As a past student I can say; it'll be tough at times but worth it in the end.

I don't mind where this is going (or has gone) but I would just point out the original intention was to examine the context of Arboriculturalists (rather than Arborists) in the context of other professions.

Indeed. Before the coalition threw Norwich's untiary authority bid in the bin the prospect of the boundary commission merging councils in Norfolk crippled decision making and triggered a wave of ship scuppering (i.e., spend everything so someone else can't have it) in a neighbouring district. I take it your in favour of the new localist agenda then? I can see promise and pitfalls alike so will bide my time until hindsight allows me to be right! I like the 1APP. I think often its the way in which it is used that is the problem. Essentially the previous system was nationally incoherant and this raised the standard of information required to a consistent benchmark - for those of us determining applications it was a good thing. An officious attitude to any process is unproductive - its possible to enforce the 1APP standard in a flexible way, there are critical sections and non critical sections.

Paul, you probably didn't see my earlier reply cos it drowned. http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/general-chat/12543-our-industry-13.html#post333635

That's fantastic - a checklist for a form that already contains a checklist! I dunno why people see the 1APP as that arduous. It stuns me that some people can't complete even the first parts about the trees location or draw a sketch plan. Modern life must defeat their every desire. Regarding the cuts - I share that sentiment in part, we can all think of bureaucracy we would like to smash however I have friends and colleagues facing a very real prospect of wage reductions, forced part time working and redundancy. These are people just like you and I who work very hard at an often unrewarding job. I'm not trying to misrepresent your point sir, just pre-empting the responses in the interests of balance.

Sorry Paul, missed this first time around. Well as Johnston points out in his article - some of the industry have but some haven't. From my point of view as a 'desk orientated arborist', I don't want to hear soundbites about the AA battering the BBC over the ubiquity of poor planting - I expect that, its a given. I want to hear about how my industry body plans to secure our involvement in the future of tree management before everyone decides they can do it without us. I've attached another recent Forest Research publication as a further case in point. Arboricultural research without Arboriculturalists. Are we only useful when trees break or get in the way of building something? I don't know. It might in terms of getting trees in the ground but none of these review documents (TIT2 included) come with an indication of impact. In one way it'd be nice if it did, a progression of the aim of Arb but in another it would be deeply disappointing given that we would simply be watching on the sidelines. Again. SERG_Amenity_values_of_street_trees.pdf

I'd say that its precisely because we've had that training that we can better describe our actions. It takes professional understanding and experience to be able to show that clarity.

I suspect it gets taught because it is the only apparently relevant law that relates to the perennial problem of the public perception of a right to light. I was paraphrasing Charles Mynors above but the issue is also raised in Arb Practice Note (APN) 11 which I have attached (see page 5) The problem lies in defining 'interruption' and being able to determine the point in time at which the tree blocks the light, even leylandii (unless civic trees turn up with a tree spade) will take several years to shade out a ground floor window - at which point your right (or easement) has been forfeited. In any case, for those kind of extreme situations, we have a more recent bit of legislation in the form of Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 (aka the high hedge legislation) that relates indirectly to light and the most significant contributors to related neighbour disputes. IMO it would be a brave and well funded legal team that would even think to try and bring an action using the prescription act. APN 11 Trees and hedges in dispute.pdf

An indication of the relevance of the prescription act is that no successful actions have been brought regarding trees since it was passed into law...

Just casting my hoodoo magic and raising up another zombie thread - partially inspired by the distant echo of Mark Johnston's lament heard fleetingly in the Arb journal this month. Read this extrememly recent publication by Forest Reasearch confirming the benefits of urban trees as identified by a recent govt. health review (yep again), and I quote (my emphasis in bold)... "The Marmot Review, set up by the government to strategically review health inequalities, identified a role for trees and green space in reducing health inequalities. This finding acknowledges the importance of green infrastructure for urban healthy living and encouraging physical activity for recreation and travel. The review suggests the need for investment in quality green space, particularly street trees in deprived areas, and advocates that the health system should promote contact with nature." You know, that sounds a lot like the kind stuff we should be involved in. Oh well - they've done it for us again. We couldn't be less relevant it seems. SERG_Urban_health_and_forestry.pdf

Minimal impact is the key as Tommer says. The next Horse Chestnut this guy spikes will probably get a nice set of Bleeding Canker injections as he stamps his way up the tree...

Nothing at all really provided it's reasonable and expedient to do so. I'm not sure this meets those benchmarks.

I haven't been able to read it properly from my tiny phone screen but I get the jist. Perhaps it warrents a letter to the head of planning asking for clarification on the documents weight, offering a savage critique and suggesting that you will be advising clients to appeal against any refusals that are based on the document. That should bring it into wider scrutiny.

Yep. Ain't had a chance to do anything but skim read though so can't pass comment. The TIT2 stuff seems to be the presentation at last years conference?

You guys have fun with your spiritual awakening, flow forms and receptive holes. Us unenlightened rational secular boundary orientated plebs will keep everything progressing and maintain the structure of a society that lets you have these opinions. When you get ill, you can use our modern secular medicine. When you need to get somewhere you can use the fruits of our past success such as the internal combustion engine. When you need to share your criticisms of the western way of thinking you can even use the communication technology our approach has facilitated. You can even share our approach to earn a living and feed your family. Its fine - just give us a shout when you're planning on returning the favour...

Nothing would make me put a CV in the bin quicker than reading that...

Ah don't worry mate. We can hammer on about this forever. I'll give you some space on your thread, I've been hogging it a bit. Essentially, I don't need it - it doesn't add anything.

Tony, don't you see that Alan's rhetoric doesn't add anything to the final result? The answer is still 2 (or 42 even!). Regardless of culture, philosophy or creed. The answer is still the same no matter how much poetry you dress is up in. The thing about the scientific method is that it gets results. Actual real results. I can't see inclusionality contributing to that. Lets look at the Axiom some more. Why is that excluded from your insistance that ALL approaches can be included within inclusionality?

You could make a good start by explaining what inclusionality can add to our understanding of the axiom of uniform stress as I mentioned earlier. In plain words and without referring to fungi! Or if your feeling adventurous, redefine the elitist boundary led thinking of 1+1=2.

I disagree. If you're open to every possibility you have to consider a whole plethora of bad, useless or even dangerous ideas. If you are receptive to ALL approaches or concepts you presumably give equal weight to the ideas that 1+1=694, the sun goes round the earth and that my precise and exacting language is the decree of the almighty moose faced god of Yarmouth. I happily filter rubbish or false information out on a daily basis and I suspect you do to. Its a perfectly reasonable way to do things. I wonder, when you claim that there are no certainties, how certain are you that you're correct? Hell, your literally telling me not to believe you! If I were using the language of inclusionality I'd say that my holes were not receptive...

The technology by which I type these words was created by 'traditional' (i.e., normal!) science. No inclusionality needed and still going strong. There is no crisis outside the minds of those with a 'solution'. Its easy to generalise; I'm interested to see if you can apply inclusionality to a specific situation. One that doesn't involve fungi!