Amelanchier

Hot off the press, a relevant section of the new 2008 amendment to the blue book which may be of interest to you Andy et al... [my empahsis] Chapter 9 – Trees in Conservation Areas Delete paragraph 9.4 Insert new paragraphs 9.4 A section 211 notice does not have to be in any particular form. But it must describe the work proposed and include sufficient particulars to identify the trees. It may be helpful to use the standard application form provided by the Secretary of State for work to trees protected by a TPO, although the LPA cannot insist on its use. I'll put a proper post with all the new updates together after my dinner.

Hmmm. Sounds a bit fatalist to me. It all depend on the structure of the planning department at your LPA. Are the tree guys/gals embedded in with the planners where they have good leverage or are they tucked away in a dungeon somewhere. Does the LPA even have any!!!! Hypothetically speaking, we would prefer to TPO your oak, let the planning permission come in and make a forceful case to move/refuse the drive because of the impact on a protected tree. Full planning permission overrides a TPO but the tree is a material consideration. The result of this approach is that if the homeowner cut his driveway hoping for retrospective permission, he would have committed an offence.

On the flip side, its very professional in my book. The right thing was done for the sustainability of the trees. We tend to need a threat to justify a TPO (not always but usually) and its good to get calls from contractors telling us about important unprotected trees that are under the gun. Now as a business strategy, its probably not a good idea to do it ever week, but in my experience, the companies or individuals that call us to warn us are the more professional established type that consider themselves to have a role in managing and shaping the landscape. Not having a pop, just giving you the other side.

See my PM.

Ah but if its a Section 211 notification, and you have notified them in writing, wait 6 weeks and do the work unless they make a TPO. 1app doesn't apply. Which LPA is it? One near me?

It would seem that notification in writing is fine. As per the normal requirements. The regs come into effect on wednesday but just for TPOs (all because of the new fast-track appeals process), but the existing CA legislation remains unchanged.

Here we go again.

Apologies. It would appear the S211 Conservation Area notifications are NOT affected by the new Regs. So drunken scribblings on the back of a chinese takeaway for a CA tree are acceptable!

...

Interesting stuff John. I know it would probably be difficult/awkward/dangerous to do in the tree but if the oppourtunity arose it'd be good to see some longitudinal cuts. Us arbs only ever really look at CODIT in the cross section of a firewood cut. Anyhow, interesting stuff.

That's a bread roll!

Nah we can't MB, we're not in the right latitudes. We occaionally get hurricane force winds but they're called windstorms because they don't have the same origins and mechanics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_windstorm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane

OK. After this I'm out. This is something that really bugs me and I know its petty and pedantic but hey. The name Carbon dioxide refers to the gas composed of one Carbon molecule and two Oxygen molecules. The term CO2 refers to one molecule of Carbon dioxide. Just one molecule. Nothing more. Its just been hijacked by common usage to refer to the plural. So to refer to your point above, Firstly you can't refer to one without the other and secondly they are different terms with different meanings! Now I'm out.

You're not alone Peter (Lofthouse Ref No. 63579)... I'm outta here

You've missed the point of the periodic table though. Its not there to make the chemical nomenclature catchy, its there to show the interrelation between elements. Its not the same taxonomic issue. Species are not the same concrete definitions as elements. Elements don't hybridise. Sorry, what would be harder to learn? 150 botanical names or 150 combinations of letters. And even that won't help as some of those combinations will be existing words, so it would probably be best to count those out of the 12 million to save on confusion. Especially as at least a few of them will be words like... Apple, Trees, Horse, David, Deano! If you don't like the botanical names. Don't use them.

Good work David. The blackbirds will go insane in that chip!

One of mine. Oh and I'm just in it for the glory! (maybe a knife) Clavulinopsis helvola (I think)

Well lets keep that as well then!

So we could only use you system when trees were unique to the site? C'mon. The current system is elegant, explanative, historical, commemorative, functional and used in every country on the planet. So you have to learn it, so what? Some things are hard, some things aren't.

Ha you're the one who wants landrover part numbers instead of tree names.

Because of the quirks of digital information. The less information you have, the more the error matters For example - Say Prunus avium is recoded to PH5N1 (incidentally try telling your client that's what its called!) And I want to write a spec to fell the PH5N1 at 6 Cobblers Lane. Well if I get a case of fat fingers, and type PH6N1... you ain't felling the right tree. Whereas if I type Pruns avum you'll be fine.

Ah, no. There may well be a more efficient system, but this one works well enough for most. I have to say that I like it. Its got character, hell its even got humour - Ladies and gentlemen, the dinosaur of rock... Masiakasaurus knopfleri http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masiakasaurus The error comes, not from the names, but from where you separate the species, genus, order etc. Some Taxonomists are 'groupers' and some are 'splitters'. For example, Betula pendula and Betula pubescens are Silver and Downy Birch right? Well some taxonomists are of the opinion that they're the same thing. And that B. pendula 'switches' to B. pubescens by doubling its chromosomes in certain environments. Ever seen Quercus x rosacea? Probably. Its a hybrid between Q. petrea and Q. robur and as such shares intermediate characteristics of each! So just about the biggest ID nightmare you'll ever find (apart from Salix spp.) Anyway, point is though the hybrid exists its nigh on impossible to ever say for certain without genetic testing that you have one. So the term literally never gets used in the real world. Because of these issues and others, any 'new' system could never be infallible either. It would still rely on taxonomists to 'split' or 'group' and it would still come up with names we would never use.

Protect and serve MB!

Interesting points Dean. And although it's not your central point, I think you've just shown why language is not binary. Your innocent typo would be quite catastrophic in binary, as to delete or replace the information in a digital information system can produce completely different outcomes. E.g., just get one number wrong in your PIN or the ISBN of a book your looking for and you're done. However, as language is analogue, we all know exactly what tree you're referring to, even though the typo was there! Th bauty of an analog systm is that vn if you rmov an ntir st of lttrs its still possibl to b undrstood. Not the same with a digital system especially binary! Anyway I get your point Dean, but don't forget the lesson of Esperanto! Unu bieron, mi petas!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto

:confused1:It wasn't that long ago that I was a "lowly" tree climber. Even while I was smacking the tops off conifer hedges, I didn't develop a persecution complex that codified into an expression of rebellion against an universally established nomenclature Botanical names are here to stay because they are useful. They serve a purpose and there's no point changing it because some people find it difficult to learn. The disadvantages of changing a common established system outweigh any benefits that would be found. There are precedents for this: a)the English language itself. Reformers have been climing that we could simplify the language for years. There are far too many silent sounds and conflated pronouciations. A good example is "Ghoti" - the constructed example of a respelling of the word [ufish[/u]used to illustrate irregularities in English spelling. gh, pronounced /f/ as in tough /tuff/; o, pronounced /I/ as in women /wimin/; and ti, pronounced /sh/ as in nation /nei-shun/. This was pointed out in 1874, so why has nothing been done??? Again the logistics and disadvantages of trying to change the entire spoken language outweigh the possible benefits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoti b) Your keyboard and mine. Both are laid out in the universal "qwerty" format. Why?? Historical accident really. It's a throwback to the invention and development of typewriters as "qwerty" represents the best possible layout to avoid keys jamming on a typewriter. However, we don't have such an issue with keyboards but an easier revised format has never been accepted because people would rather spend their lives doing other things than learning a completely new system of typing. A revolution would be impossible and reform has no support. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QWERTY Botanical names have more use than you imagine.