Amelanchier

S213 of the TCPA 1990 (as amended) obliges the landowner to plant a replacement tree for removals under exemptions. As far as I recall that can be enforced by a tree replacement notice under s207... A bit backwards but there you go.

Yep. My initial thoughts are that this could be a much simpler document - and more likely to be embraced for that simplicity. The feng shui of the document is complex (there are sub-flowcharts that arise from flowcharts, there are multiple references per clause (see attached) and there is just too much informative text. Some of the sub clause notes are larger than the clause they annotate! To my mind the proportions are awry; there are 30 odd pages of standard and 60 pages of annex - all useful extra guidance but clearing it all to the end means that your continually navigating back and forth... Anyhoo - now have to try and comment via the BSI website. No point just moaning huh?

We are living in an era of greenwash. Pulling the truth from it is not always an easy thing to do. Just ask Mr Lynas... Mark Lynas: truth, treachery and GM food | Environment | The Observer

Did you have a point in mind when you started this thread? Or was it just "I don't agree with this guy's opinions so I will vent my frustration by starting a thread calling him a plonker and a muppet?"

Be careful with that - some woods sink (though you're unlikely to be rigging Ebony or Persian Ironwood) and the principle of buoyancy ensures that things that are heavier than water can float provided they displace a greater weight of the fluid. There is a table here that might be applicable (but note that its dry wood that was sampled - live timber will be much much heavier in most cases); Mass, Weight, Density or Specific Gravity of Wood

As am I! What I mean is that we should take an purposive approach and base our interpretation on a sensible assumption about what the authors intentions were when they collectively wrote the standard. Isn't that just playing with the semantics of 'comply' and 'follow' though? If you follow the process as far as it can be be practically followed isn't your end product compliant with that process in any meaningful sense of the word 'compliant'? As we are aware, the discrepancy is a plain logical contradiction - you can't value the trees in wilful ignorance of a development while considering that development in their valuation. I.e., you can't avoid doing X if you are doing X. To my mind anything that isn't logically possible is automatically irrelevant to the intended outcome of the process - its either; A) a mistake; B) a deliberate nonsense, or; C) resolvable by clarification of the terms. If a set of instructions to build a boat had a step that required us to draw a square circle as part of the construction would we say that we weren't compliant if we couldn't draw one but ended up with a serviceable boat at the end of the process? Would that be a useful definition of compliant? Would it be fair to say that the end product was not compliant with the instructions? Pure pedantry of course but then we all need a hobby. Not at all, I agree. Just to clarify, I use the categories much like everyone here following the prescribed criteria to the best of my ability and experience with justification and explanation where appropriate. I just don't rely on the pigeonhole when assessing impacts on the pigeon. TBH I doubt anyone posting on this thread really does but I've encountered it frequently in my previous LPA life. The 2005 incarnation of the standard includes a note to section 4.2.6 (tree survey requirements) that read; "It may be appropriate to assess and list the amenity value of trees as a separate consideration. Various methods have been proposed as aids to making this assessment..." Thereby recognising the limitation of the categorisation method in reflecting individual variation of amenity. It was and still is common to read that a tree should be removed or retained because it is category A or C. As far as I can see that means very little - it assesses the pigeonhole and forgets the pigeon...

Is this apparent discrepancy in 4.4.2.2 really an issue? Do many Arbs, on encountering this conflict sit motionless between the two possibilities like Buridan's ass? It seems to me that the only sensible approach in surveying is to describe the situation as it is when you find it. So either 4.4.2.2 is in error or it should be read as being compatible with the sensible approach. Either way the problem disappears...

I have come to view the disinterested as a niche market. They have their own challenges but their money is worth just as much.

Well if people aren't going to read it what can you do?

Agreed but I don't rewrite it; I just don't rely on it.

Except that in the foreword we have the following [my emphasis in bold]; "This British Standard takes the form of guidance and recommendations. It should not be quoted as if it were a specification and particular care should be taken to ensure that claims of compliance are not misleading. Any user claiming compliance with this British Standard is expected to be able to justify any course of action that deviates from its recommendations."

I don't see BS5837 categorisation as that important, it's simply a mechanism to add value information to your dataset (i.e., is it a decent tree? If so - what's decent about it?). So the categorisation is as relevant as your argument needs it to be. Clearly an AIA needs some sort of value data because you can't usefully weigh the future impacts on an asset without first establishing it's existing worth (though I've seen it tried). Of course you then need to explain your framework for making those judgements - the BS categorisation is just an attempt to unify that explanation to create, well, er, some kind of standard... to that end I feel obliged in my reports to describe the current and future amenity that the trees provide to the area at length within the text, so I don't feel so beholden to the categories. As a result I can't say I fret to much about whether a given tree is an "A" or a "B1" because if its an important tree within the scheme then I'll have identified its particular merits and limitations anyway. I find that it is much clearer to make an argument about retaining trees because they "...provide significant scale and mass which breaks up the predominantly built skyline that forms a backdrop to the views of the site from the northwest..." rather than because they "are of category A2". Tends to be the way PINS inspectors phrase things to - jargon free and specific. I'm always rather pleased to see consultation feedback comments which dwell on categorisation (or any other immaterial detail). To my mind it means the argument is so well made that the consultee is left with nothing that matters.

Unusual perhaps but not uncommon. Those five trees won't be identical and one of them has to be first - also the OP only showed us two pictures!

I'm typing this on a virtual qwerty keyboard. There are many more efficient and streamlined keyboard layouts but this one's been around since typewriters. Historical conventions are often immutable. Also acronyms and abbreviations frequently supercede and overpower their component terms. Do you say PIN number despite knowing what the 'N' means? I do - it's convention and convention enables better communication.

Ah but Beech bark disease is a secondary fungal infection facilitated by the scale as a vector. So you can often have the scale without the beech bark disease...

That would be my diagnosis - the Felted Beech Scale (Cryptococcus fagisuga) produces that bark patterning quite regularly IME.

I doubt there's any widespread confusion about the difference. There's just a lot of people who don't care... It's just not that relevant to the majority. I guess you can try and force a change but fighting apathy is like punching smoke.

It's spammy because a Google search of your username combined with that of your broker reveals that you've historically posted similar content on other forums and comments pages. At least you're not a bot

Are you guys the Judean People's Front?

Your next post better be a lot less spammy.

Don't need case history when you have primary legislation! The 1990 act has been amended several times since its inception - most recently by the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation)(England) Regulations 2012 which pick up the 1999 phrasing of the offences. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/605/regulation/13/made

Exactly - I'd hope that every climber is sensible enough to know their limitations with regard to altering kit. Pictures on a forum can't beat real world proficiency!

You are right. Tell them that you don't care if they 'validate' the 211 or not as the work will be undertaken once the six weeks are up from the date you first notified them. You might also like to contact the head of planning and point out they have a problem...

I found these to be pretty robust: Clippers micro clips - Accessories Outdoor Gear Shop - Alpkit

Beat me to it. With regard to the likelihood of prosecution angle it's worth remembering that the LPA has a duty under law to make provision for the preservation of trees and that there have been cases taken to the ombudsman against councils who have been too slack in pursuing that public interest duty.