Amelanchier

That's fine, the others aren't going anywhere when you're ready I dunno - I'd accept that it might well have a skew toward the lower end but a natural variable such as stem diameter is characteristic of a simple population biomass pyramid. Amenity doesn't play by those kind of arithmetic rules. The system still requires site visits for the middle ground whether that covers 50% of the population or 20% - its still an increase in workload. The Blue Book is clear in this respect, which is why I used it. (My emphasis in bold) - 9.5 It is vitally important that the section 211 notice sets out clearly what work is proposed. This should be straightforward if the proposal is to fell a tree, as long as the tree is clearly identified. But if the proposal is to prune a tree the section 211 notice should clarify exactly what work is envisaged. A proposal simply to 'top' the tree or to 'lop' or 'cut back' some branches is too vague because it fails to describe the extent of the work. People are advised not to submit a section 211 notice until they are in a position to present a clear proposal. They should consider first discussing their ideas with an arboriculturist or the tree officer of the LPA. 9.6 If the LPA receive a vague section 211 notice they are advised to refer back to the person who submitted it. Any clarification of the proposal should be confirmed in writing, either by modifying the original section 211 notice or withdrawing it and submitting a new one. Viola! Increased workload. Yes it does. You're oversimplifying the value issue again - what about the tree that has amenity value but just not enough to TPO it? Is it OK if the owner wants to top it at 6metres because it blocks the TV signal? You suggest creating the same wrangling and informal dialouge that goes on already in conservation areas (which often takes the LPA right up to the 6 week deadline) to the whole country. That's gonna be more work. No, not one that reduces workload whilst increasing protection. Do I need one?

Its easy to design a system that addresses each end of the scale well. Crap trees = hack away / Nice trees = TPO. Easy right? However, that's not where the majority of trees are. I'd suggest that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that the amenity value of trees is normally distributed throughout the population. Therefore the majority of trees tend to be of medium amenity value - subsequently it follows that the majority of works under your proposed scheme would relate to trees of middling amenity value; requiring a site visit to determine the appropriateness of a TPO simply because its not clear cut. Furthermore, lets not forget that the majority of all notifications are sub standard and typically notify of an owners intent to "prune the tree". Clarifying the notifications from across an entire district neccessarily increases workload. Consider enforcement - patchily implemented at best. Just how much officer time will be needed to enforce a blanket restriction on all trees over your size criteria? How many cases will fail the test of public interest? Also - how do you get from here to there? How do you overlap the systems without a spike in man hours? And how do you fund that spike with the proposed budgets? Don't get me wrong - the idea has legs as Andrew says. There just happen to be a lot of hurdles for those legs to get over.

I doubt it. The AAIS issued a tree damage note a couple of years ago regarding Frisia dieback - the direction that the RHS and other bodies were looking into was a vascular wilt disease. http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/tree-health-care/8148-robinia-problem.html The incidence seems to increase after drought conditions - hardly ideal conditions for Phytopthera...

197... I'll wait for you to flesh this in a bit before making any detailed comments but I wonder - how do you get there from here? In a rural district like the one I used to work in, the idea that you would be able to avoid site visits for even half the trees with notified works is way out IMO.

I believe some of the more old skool climbers in America call it a "Sissy Strap". Well, the ones that are still alive with working spines do anyway.

From Tony to Tony, don't suggest anything unless you're happy for them not to do it. If you want them to monitor the trees - tell them they must. You'll find it hard to defend giving them the option should anything go wrong. Suggestions are fine for two equally valid options that achieve the same mitigation of risk but have cost/habitat implications (e.g., fell to ground level or dismantle to 4m high stump) but when it comes to risks and hazards be authoritarian. The client expect you to tell them what to do. Also don't just write 'monitor' in the survey sheet. You might as well write 'get anyone to casually look at it whenever they want and to do nothing regardless of their findings'. You need to explicitly state who, when, what for and what they should do after finding something. Remember, you can monitor something as it fails or falls - the act of monitoring is useless without action. I prefer the term re-assessment. Sorry if you were already aware, just thought there was an oppoutunity to stick my oar in!

I think that would be a sure fire way of condemning an entire cohort of trees. Quite aside from that - I doubt it would be simpler, the man hours requred to manage every notification would skyrocket. Not gonna happen with 25% cuts in the public sector. I think we need to consider what our statutory protection is for? There's too much focus on keeping existing trees and whilst this is obviously important IMO we should be looking to strengthen the replacement and replanting of new trees. Conservation Areas aim to protect the character of an area but fail to secure replanting. Fine, we can enforce replacements for trees removed under exemptions but a canny punter won't ask for an exemption, he'll simply give 6 weeks notice. You need planning consent to put up a sky dish on your house but its fine to plant a Cordyline australis in a inland rural setting or a puny Salix caprea 'Kilmarnock' at the front of a Georgian town house. CAs do nothing to prevent the insidious dilution of character in the green landscape, they simply stall it by clinging on to the old. Every tree will become exempt one day, all trees die - if the owners simply notify of their removal when they appear to be on the way out, its nigh on impossible to TPO them and even harder to convince the owners that they should register for an exemption so you can hit them with a replacement notice. We have character statements for conservation areas, these could include a limited palette of appropriate species for planting, enforceable at the discretion of the LPA upon notification of intent to fell or remove. TPOs are too complicated and too hardcore. We should be able to give a list of acceptable works with an Order without the need for an application. In fact I'm sure we probably could under the existing regs but it should be clarified and emphasised in the guidance. What is the point in requiring an application for repollarding for example? A TPO on a pollard should include an exemption for re-pollarding it on a 3/5/10 year cycle (to appropriate best practice of course and with the owner simply notifying of the date of works). Why can't we give some flexibility back where we can assess there is no harm in doing so? Proactive consent for the everyday crown lifts and clearance pruning involving the removal of branches below 50mm in diameter? The Batho report dismissed the idea of individual tree management plans but some early common sense would help tree owners. And let's not forget the abortion that was Labour's draft heritage bill - the one that had the potential to give us Green Monument status for all our veterans, recognising their unique status and the ineffectiveness of TPOs in safeguarding their value. Shelved due to the war and the recession. In any case, the jolly old coalition is asking for suggestions chaps, answers on a postcard to ... [email protected] not sure they want to hear requests for more legislation though!

Aw cheers man.

Hey Stu, I missed my first comps in five years this time around. I've found the total cost for me has gradually crept up with the combination of travel, days off, food/booze and entrance fee. Its not the ISAs fault - just the way of things. Over the years, the comps I have enjoyed the most have been those that encourage the group to stay together. The Guildford rugby club comp (2007?) Myerscough 2009 (or was it 2008?) springs to mind - I'd have to dig the Tshirts out to get the years right. Whilst the goodie bags are nice to get, I'd prefer to see more of any money I spent going into facilities and entertainment. Having a break day before the masters is difficult to implement but it worked well in allowing greater interaction between the regular top notch comp climbers and us normos. Also while I think of it, IMO I'd like to see a consistent prize for the best tech/judge and the awarding of the spirit of the comp to more people outside the top ranks. So yeah, I'd chuck 50-70 at you (in advance of course) if we had a cohesive event with one nights catering, some entertainment (even if it is just you throwing yourself at a bunch of bar stools) and some inclusive camping / facilities. Sounds good.

I can do better than let it die. Thread closed.

Or just get any of the million other smartphones that have been doing this stuff for years before Apple told you it was cool.

It seems to be consistent with Mattheck et al and the 1/3 rule.

Did it involve a hat? Only kidding - hadn't heard of that before. Would be interested to find out.

I see no problem with subjectivity in Arboriculture. Subjective is what we are, objective is what we strive to be. We'll never achieve it of course, but the principle of attempting to attain it has many benefits and sets our combined course. The only time a problem arises is when we fail to recognise and define our terms of reference and how they affect our answers - our ontology and epistemology. Thats part of the science. Chin up.

Exactomundo.

Rain is good. Lets go with rain. It rains quite a lot in Wales but not very much in Norfolk. Are trees worth less in Norfolk than they are in Wales? Who are these rain services rendered to and do they want/need the 'service'? Are trees worth more in a wet year? And how would you seperate the 'tree-rain' from the 'Atlantic/orographic-rain'? Double counting? My point is that its easy to say what should be valued (given a price/cost), but far harder to actually value it. Just try to think of a mechanism by which you could put a price, per tree, for its genetic resource?!? Also not all scoring systems are equal - when the information they attempt to quantify is continuous (eg physiological/structural condition) answers are highly dependent on the categories given (1-10 gives more variation than 1-5 - but terms like good/fair/poor/bad/run away still get used because you have to draw the line somewhere...) Some systems deal with this well and some don't. Essentially IMO, valuing something simply for the services it offers to us misses a large proportion of its worth. However, disregarding those services is a similar folly, so you put them together right? Add subjective into objective and you get subjective - it dominates and there nothing wrong with that. Problem is what's the ratio between the two components and how do you decide on it?

Is her arse actually worth $5 mill? Or is that how much it is insured for? Essentially, the maximum value that the insurers would pay out if some massive arse calamity occured. And is it that amount because it is "beautiful" or just because it sells a lot of records/clothes/shampoo? I.e., is the value (not the arse) inflated? Aesthetics are subjective, therefore the value of aesthetics is subjective, therefore no tree valuation system can be completely holistic (compare answers from a bad developer, a tree hugger and a blind person). Progress is being made to calibrate iTree for the UK i-Tree - Tools for Assessing and Managing Community Forests A handy system, but again produces a value for a specific purpose. Behind every value/price/cost there is a framework for its interpretation. If you make the framework too broad the accuracy of the value drops - make it too specific and it becomes irrelevant. So - even if you could integrate every possible aspect of a trees worth to society, you would have blurred the lines to the point of uselessness. A golden rule in environmental valuation is to avoid double counting. Are those worms with this tree or that? Fun though huh?

Hama, how do you put a price on beauty? Replacement cost? Maintentance cost? Peoples willingness to pay for tree retention? Willingness to pay to prevent tree loss? Total value of ecosystem services? Increase of property or land price? None even come close to 'valuing' the aesthetic of trees.

There is no such thing as 'true' value. Any value that we determine in an economic sense is a dervative of materials, labour, benefits, demand etc. Furthermore there is no perfect final valuation system - it depends on who is valuing it and for what purpose. That's why we talk about market value when looking at houses rather than rebuild value (which is factored into house insurance) and why art is priced beyond sheer materials and time. A classic car is worth less to the scrap man than it is to the collector. The value of something is what people agree it is. With trees that is never going to be either holistic or incontrovertible.

Naaah. Pick your system, name your value, stick in in your report. Its as subjective as the rest of the document - if someone wants to argue the point so what? They'll normally argue everything anyway, but at least you'll be talking tree value. Talking about it is the first step to admitting its there!

Amazing beast. Great shot and top find in the daytime. Nice one!

I agree - putting a value on a tree makes it much easier to argue for its retention (or indeed a reasoned discussion about its worth in the light of other development options).

If there's a walnut growing in the middle of the picture, its a walnut...

Marcus, what is the extent of the predictive capacites of TI/TTMS? I can see the function of comparison with a normal population but does it allow the user to test a hypothesis about possible causes of dysfunction? Would the user be able to walk up to a tree, identify some kind of symptom (tip dieback for example) and predict the result of the TI based on the possible causal agent (perhaps root damage)? What level of distinction can be achieved between causes that affect similar parts of the tree? Often we are presented with images that have been translated/decoded after the fact and I wonder if there are any reasonable consistent correlations that could be tested up front.

Def Juglans regia. So you're right in saying its not black Walnut.