Amelanchier

Yep well done Ed. He saved my life dontcha know...

What's wrong with slippers??? They're very comfy. I'm up for a drinking comp. I'll be the homeless looking chap shambling around with an armfull of tinnies. Bliss.

I've been running over mountains through snow, bench pressing trees and punching frozen carcasses for years. All while reading the Journal! And I've seen all the Arbs moves - I used to be one. Poacher turned gamekeeper. No contest. ha ha

Depends what your events are... How far you can throw a toy out of a pram?

Bring it on.

I think we can make some educated guesses. Armchair dendrology / pathology if you like. We know that only the Frisia variety seems to be affected. So it seems reasonable to infer that this disorder affects Frisia because its Frisia. (Seems simple huh, but normally correlation does not mean causation.) So what's different about Frisia?? As Lee's link reminds us; its a grafted variety and its got yellow foliage. It was created by cramming a bit of a naturally occuring yellow sport into the rootstock of a normal R. psuedoacacia. Yellow leaves are yellow because carotenoids are reflecting more visible light than the cholorophyll which is present at lower levels than green leaves - they photosynthesise at a slower rate. Traditionally "yellow" plants / trees are considered less vigourous than their wildtype counterparts. It seems reasonable to infer that less vigour means a reduced ability to compartmentalise as well as slower growth. A vascular wilt fungus clogs and blocks xylem vessels as it is transported (typically from the soil) around the tree. Robinia spp. are ring porous so to begin with, any damage caused by such an agent affects a greater percentage of active vessels. We can there surmise that perhaps the normal Robinia pseudoacacia might have sufficient vigour to compartmentalise any damage and even grow additional vascular tissue over a longer/earlier growing season. Its interesting that the RHS info suggests that it would be a surprise that such an agent could pass through the "graft barrier". What barrier? The tissue is fused? Additionally, lets not think of this disease attacking and affecting different trees. Frisia is probably a graft clone. As a clone, if one tree can be affected...

And I don't have a problem with that, now that we all know where you're coming from. Your original post was phrased in a different way that implied you hadn't decided yourself. Of course - I'm expecting positive / constructive comments only. I don't want this turning into an "AA-bashing" thread. It serves no-one and doesn't do the forum any favours.

Well if you can't see the value, why are you still a member? Seem like you've made your mind up to me. What's the point of this poll?

I'm a professional member and its worth it. The newsletters keep me in touch with new developments, the Journal is helpful in my line of work and I've used my membership discount on courses.

Hello all, Details sketchy at the moment but I have been informed that Honey Brothers werwe broken into last night and were relieved of a considerable amount of saws and climbing gear. Spread the word and keep you eyes and ears open people. I'll update with details as I get them.

We did have a Tree Damage Note issued by the AAIS last year sometime that indicated much the same thing i.e., symptoms consistent with a vascular wilt possibly exacerbated by a hot summer. I'd suspect that there might be some genetic predisposing factors here as its only the 'Frisia' variant that is affected. I wouldn't get your hopes up on the causal factor being discovered anytime soon either - I doubt Forest Research (the bods with the big money and kit) are that bothered by such a niche disorder on amenity trees... As for control measures - vascular dysfunction leads to tissue death so no amount of pruning is going to help IMO. Pollarding might be an option or failing that remove and replace with Gleditsia triacanthos 'Sunburst', a similar but far superior tree in every way.

Well it was the "Countryside Agency" which is now Natural England who are responsible for designating Access Land. CROW 2000 simply removes the liability for certain hazards in certain areas - there's nothing to comply with!

Nice summary there Andy but my point related to CROW 2000 overriding the Occupiers Liability Acts in terms of tree related hazards on designated Access Land. I fail to see how any of the legislation places any onus/responsibility/liability on the LPA or the DCLG in such cases.

Tim, there's just no current mechanism for that to happen. We have to work with what we've got - which is cumbersome, slow, inefficient and mostly ineffective when it comes to trees. The enforcement system works on the basis of making people put things back how they were. Just doesn't work with roots / habitat / ecosystems / landscapes. Prevention is better than cure and although deterrents are a big part of that, education is more important. When I say that, I mean not just explaining about compaction th the bloke on the ground, but being involved from the outset at the design stages before anyone has even been on site. Its about getting people to see that trees are an asset, worth retaining and not a liability that gets in the way. Working as a contractor, I was never involved in that. As you say, you drive by and see bad practice but can't influence the process. Even when consulting, there is a limit to influence - I'll spend hours working out ways something can be done but have little input on whether it should be done at all! At my level in the Planning process, there's more "control" but its still a drop in the ocean. Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending poor practice or the inadequacies of the system. It winds me up just as much as anyone else. I'm just explaining the situation from this side of the fence. That'll be the continous fixed Heras panel fence secured by a scaffold frame as shown in Fig 2 of BS 5837:2005 at the outer extent of the RPA of this discussion.

I'm sure i'll just be the first of many to highly recommend them. In my experience, they have a complete and very personal approach.

Er did we all just agree on something? Nah, that can't be right...

Sorry to hear that Tim - wasn't that Norfolk County Council though? I suspect that the Hospital is within the Norwich City Council jurisdiction. I was just being stroppy - its in the Job description!

Maybe they're on a development site somewhere harassing JCB drivers...

Yep. Not so much a case as an undeniable truth!

How does it put liability back on the LPAs? On Access land - there is no such liability provided the landowner has not created a hazard deliberately or recklessly. Doesn't override common law duty of care to neighbours but it does explicitly legislate for the acceptance of risk from trees. I personally think its a good model to expand.

Neither the NHS nor its contractors have crown immunity that allows them to disregard planning conditions including AIA / AMS / TPP details (which presumably will be availble to view on the NCC website). Welcome to our world - How many development sites with trees are there currently being worked on in the district? How many Tree Officers? I could spend all day driving from site to site, stopping works and educating laborers and I still wouldn't get them all. Believe me - we try. And why are you surprised that you can't get hold of the Officer? Is he/she not allowed time off?

Problem is though - all that heat has to go somewhere... Glazy glazy.

OR... Designate more land as access land under the Countryside and Rights of Ways Act 2000. "(2) In section 1 of the [1984 c. 3.] Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 (duty of occupier to persons other than his visitors), after subsection (6) there is inserted— “(6A) At any time when the right conferred by section 2(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 is exercisable in relation to land which is access land for the purposes of Part I of that Act, an occupier of the land owes (subject to subsection (6C) below) no duty by virtue of this section to any person in respect of— (a) a risk resulting from the existence of any natural feature of the landscape, or any river, stream, ditch or pond whether or not a natural feature, or (b) a risk of that person suffering injury when passing over, under or through any wall, fence or gate, except by proper use of the gate or of a stile. (6B) For the purposes of subsection (6A) above, any plant, shrub or tree, of whatever origin, is to be regarded as a natural feature of the landscape. (6C) Subsection (6A) does not prevent an occupier from owing a duty by virtue of this section in respect of any risk where the danger concerned is due to anything done by the occupier— (a) with the intention of creating that risk, or (b) being reckless as to whether that risk is created.” (3) After section 1 of that Act there is inserted—" Makes sense to me.

What Gav said!

Nice one. Notice how the sequence of colours is inverted on the outer 'bow... VIBYOR - ROYGBIV