Amelanchier
-
Posts
3,810 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Classifieds
Tip Site Directory
Blogs
Articles
News
Arborist Reviews
Arbtalk Knot Guide
Gallery
Store
Calendar
Freelancers directory
Everything posted by Amelanchier
-
Not sure your video matches your post.
-
cutting down a tree with a machine gun
Amelanchier replied to Jason James Gairn's topic in Video forum
I was expecting something a little more dramatic... -
cheers
-
Corylus colurna?
-
Consent may have been granted to coppice, the tree may have failed or been felled illegally. I think that if it could be expected to regrow to a tree/trees then it'd be worth checking but your right different LPAs will have different opinions. You're quite right that the legislation does not define a tree - the closest thing is "...anything that one would ordinarily call a tree..." (or something like that!)
-
Do you mean if there was a spot that was 'reserved' for a TPO tree to be planted? You might have to move it I guess. Depends what you put in. Theoretically I'd suggest you could. If the stump was still live and could reasonably be assume to regrow (Sweet chestnut for example) then you might be found guilty of the lesser offence of unauthorised works. Of course if you had applied to 'remove' the tree then you'd have that base covered.
-
The LPA should be able to tell you over the phone whether there are any constriant on a tree (TPO or Conservation Area) or at worst within 48hrs (Planning App Checks may take a little longer!!!) There will (should!) be a public register available at the council offices. 8 weeks is the maximum duration for determining an application for works - any longer and you can appeal. As has been pointed out. There are TPOs on a wide range of trees from seedlings to stumps. Because a TPO is a landcharge there doesn't even have to be a tree there!!!
-
Its a photo of a photo. The scanner was broken - cutbacks y'know
-
A colleague dug these out of a TPO file the other day. Poor fool - it's a sycamore, you'll have to try a bit harder than that!
-
I have a slice of E. gunni at home that clearly shows the preferential creation of wood on the underside of the long heavily end weighted limb it was taken from. I also have photos at home of preferential creation of addtional wood on the tension side of a leaning C. macrocarpa. However, actual 'compression wood' is structurally distinct from normal wood and is particular to coniferous trees. (Apparently including ginkos too... ) So to answer your original question I would suggest that a tree acting in line with Matthecks Axiom of Uniform Stress will add wood where the cambium detects uneven forces - if its adapted to produce specific types of wood, then it will use those. Annoyingly most of the literature about compression wood focuses on commercial impacts on the timber quality of crop trees.
-
Yeah, I probably would. Why would the failure of 1 tree out of 100 be "too many"? That's a 1% failure rate. IMO that's likely to be a over estimate. Are you saying we shouldn't accept a failure rate above zero where trees are next to targets? You can justify any removal with that logic. Its not a reasonably practical approach to tree management. The most likely failure mode of that tree is branch failure not stem failure at the wound. If you remove trees on the likelihood of branch failure then there won't be many left. I assume you refer to the fact that the owners children use the garden - when is the sycamore most likely to fail? High winds and storm events; when the kids are unlikely to be under it.
-
You don't think much of Councils eh Topcat? Risks of what? Stem failure? Realistically, out of 100 Sycamores like that with a large diameter long pullout wound with good callus, how many would you expect to fail???? The decking intercepts precipitation. Fact. How much it does so and what effect that will have is the point of judgement. I'd agree that its probably something the tree could deal with over time. Refering the council to poor practice is worthless. Would you justify topping it by providing pictures of trees that have survived and regenerated a new crown? What about the hornbeam? Thing is, this is a planning issue and not a tree valuation seminar. Presumably, the council consider that planning permission was required. If an application came into me for the decking I'd be looking for some evidence that the decking could be achieved without harm to the trees. Perfectly reasonable IMO.
-
Sounds like the council want to know if the decking has a detrimental effect upon the trees. So whilst you're not being asked if you think the tree should stay - it'd be worth mentioning why you consider that it should be removed. My concern would be damage to the root zone from the decking installation, stem damage during the construction process and rain shadow. Now if the first two have happened, removing the decking will make no difference. More of a long term problem will be rainshadow. Its going to be a lot dryer under in those RPAs with the decking there. Whether that has the potential to have a detrimental effect is a matter of judgement on a range of variables.
-
Speaking of Hen's Teeth - the so called Talpid mutation can cause the domestic chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) to grow the teeth that its evolution suppressed... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060223083601.htm Sorry a bit off topic
-
Suckers mate. The greatest impact on trees is probably aphids - so i'd start there. You might have different angles to look at if you broke it down into forestry, nursery, fruit cultivation and amenity inpacts...
-
Too right John. Its worth that little bit of effort of communication - I like a bit of before and after.
-
25 min puzzle!
-
Yep. You don't need it.
-
Mester - at the bottom of the third pic of the OP there is a broken fruiting body, the tubes of that one look to be a different colour to its flesh...
-
For tree hazard risk assessments? I just use a simple table:- Tree Number Species (common and botanical) Age Category Condition (broken down into root zone, stem and canopy) Recommendations Work Priority Re-inspection Interval
-
Thats a huge gulf in knowledge IMO. You would be likely to need a intermediate qual such as the RFS Cert at Lvl 2 or an AA Tech Cert at Lvl 3. The Lantra Basic is aimed at the layman. Whereas the PTI assumes a lot of lvl 3 (4?) knowledge. Basically you haven't recieved a clear answer because there isn't one.
-
What Andy said.
-
I think yours is a common reaction but lets have a think at what Barry could spot that he could deal with with CS 30/31, a little McCulloch, a step ladder/handsaw and a polesaw. Small dead trees? Small leaning / suppressed trees? Low dead wood? Crown lifts? Hangers? Split limbs? Vehicle impact damage? Thats usually about 50% of my surveys. If Barry got on with that, we could leave the other stuff to the Arbs. Why are we so protective about tree work? We need people like Barry looking at trees, that my point. Not only that - but we need to accept that in the vast majority of cases - Barry gets asked to do it anyway regardless of your Quals or mine. So lets train him.
-
Well - what I'm getting at is this. There are a lot of trees - there aren't very many qualified and experienced Arbs (comparatively speaking). The risk presented by the tree population is low. So its no great problem to have Barry the gardener having a wander round your trees once a year. It's simply sustainable management. If he spots something odd - he can give an Arb a ring (escalation, as you say). That way, his boss has the money to pay for tree work instead of paying for paperwork. Maybe he could afford to plant more trees as well?? (yeah I know I'm talking my way out of work!) Obviously there are situations that are different where the risks and hazards are greater and I wouldn't dispute the need for proper inspections - it has to be proportional. Thats where the Basic Lantra course comes in. It tells Barry when to give an Arb a ring.
-
You don't always need fully qualified and experienced arbs to inspect trees. The courts have shown that they are happy (in some circumstances) to discharge the duty of care on the basis of a layman / basic opinion. Now, I'm not saying that applies to all circumstances but that's kind of where we're going with some recent cases and the Lantra Basic tree inspection course (note a course not a qual)... I don't think we can afford to be too precious over tree inspection. There aren't enough of us.
