stevelucocq

Hi Scott, i Currently use AutoCAD/ArborCAD for my plans with normally a supplied topographical survey. Sometimes the client does not have a topo so i end up making my own measurements. GPS would be handy but not essential, out of interest how accurate are things these days? Thanks

Starting to think about getting a PDA and software, has much changed since the last post? Cheers Steve Ps mostly do bs5837 work

U are the same Sean who was on the tech cert right?

Nice one! u well?

Hi, sorry but not sure if this has been covered before but when can you say a tree is a veteran? I had to take a look at these oak trees (robur) the other day. The larger one has a 5 metre girth and had features starting to make me feel it’s becoming a veteran (i.e. old storm damage branches, good amounts of deadwood etc, the above girth measurement). I have estimated it to be 300 years old from some basic information found on the web but is there something a bit more precise for ageing trees? (If there is?) thanks in advance!

Sorry a few typos!

Thanks for your comments but I have visited a site where a small extension was being built to a find contractor mixing cement under the canopy of a fine oak tree. Nothing would surprise what contractors do (knowingly or not) to trees so conditions and informatives do bring awareness and hopefully prevent the contractors having any chance of causing an adverse impact on to the trees.

Not my blog but of interest Stephen's Blog - BS 5837:2012 - An Insider's Guide to the changes

Hi, I have been talking to a planning officer regarding what level of Arb detail should be provided with a planning application. She explained the benefits of front loading an application so ALL information is provided up front and how the application will be processed generally more quickly. I guess overall the delay in not providing all information up front can cost the developer more than the cost of the full Arb report etc. The applications where i have been involved with input from an early stage and produced a Tree Constraints Plan to aid the developer to design around the trees of value have always gone through more smoothly as you would expect. So i can see the pros and cons of different approaches but still struggle with spenting a lot of time and effort producing tree protection plans only to see applications refused for other reasons. I guess that's up to the developer to do all their research and ask for preapplication advice before commiting.

Thanks for this. Steve

I have nothing specific to Arboricultural supervision. I would be keen to recommend such a condition which included details of the supervision, such as inspection frequency, findings, photos etc Thanks, Steve

Thanks for the comments, My point was where things are clear cut then a tree survey would only be required and tree protection could be conditioned in. Where things are complex then heads of terms/tree protection plan etc would be required to illustrate how things are going to be achieved and what will be lost. What I was trying to say is that a reasonable level of detail should be provided. Thanks, Steve

Following on from the http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/trees-law/46340-tree-survey-arb-impact-assessment.html thread I was looking to get feedback/thoughts on the following: My understanding it that the new BS is looking more for tree surveys/constraints plans to be provided with a planning application. From the tree survey/constraints plan straightforward applications can be quickly assessed and where requiried Arb Methods/Tree Protection Plan etc can be conditioned into planning approval. A condition which we have been tweaking is as follows: 1. A.) No development including demolition work shall commence on site until a scheme for the retention and protection of trees to British Standard 5837:2012 - Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include full details on all works that impact on the original ground conditions within the root protection areas, as detailed in BS5837:2012 and in particular details of protective fencing, ground protection & construction method, required tree surgery operations, service trenching position and any changes in ground level within the root protection areas of all retained trees. No development shall take place except in complete accordance with the approved scheme, and the works required by that scheme are in place. All protective fencing, ground protection etc shall be retained intact for the full duration of the development hereby approved, and shall only be removed, or altered in that time with the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. B.) No development including demolition work shall commence until all tree protection measures as detailed in the approved scheme have been implemented, inspected and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where things are tighter/complex etc and not clear how the proposed scheme is going to be built without causing an adverse impact on the trees to be retained then an Arb impact/tree protection plan etc may be required. This may only be the heads of terms and a tree protection plan to illustrate these methods. In terms of fairness asking for a full detail Arb impact assessment/methods statement/ tree protection plans etc when submitting a planning application that may well be refused for visual impact seems wasteful to me? Thanks for any comments or amendments on this condition and I hope it makes sense as it’s Friday afternoon! Steve

No it is not a compression union.

Hi, We have just inspected a Beech tree which has a Ganoderma bracket at 8 metres above ground level (See attached pictures). We have requested an aerial inspection of the tree but this may prove unlikely. Any observations on the attached pictures will be useful. Sorry there is not much to go on at the moment. Thanks in advance, Steve

Thanks for posting

great video and great music!....any more to follow?

ha, love this thread!

Yes the trees are TPOd.

Hi, Any advice on how to manage previously topped native oak trees (Don’t think these trees fit the description of a true pollard). There are many topped oak trees as shown below within a housing estate. The client wants to re-top this tree but I feel it could be left for another few years. Ideally I would not want to see this tree re-topped but interested to hear how others would manage such a tree? No doubt when any work is carried to this tree the rest of the estate will be keen to follow. Thanks in advance. Steve

Hi Dean, Sorry if abit late and way off the mark but theses brackets look more like Rigidoporus to me? http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/fungi-pictures/6205-rigidoporus-ulmarius-2.html Also out of interest if it was Rigidoporous would the alarm bells be ringing so loud? Cheers Steve

Is this perenniporia fraxinea? I am always a little doubtfull as it has some traits of Ridiporous. Interesting to see how the fruiting body has fill the back area of the buttress almost like tarmac. Needless to say that this dead Ash tree is being removed very quickly. Any comments welcome, sorry if this has been covered numerous times!

Thanks for all the replies! The tree is TPOd. I am torn on this one and still weighing it all up. Thanks Steve

Hi, There is staining from an old branch pruning wound (See picture below.) I am not too concerned about this but feel free to comment. I have further information regarding the soil type from an old arboricultral report: tactile and visual examination indicate the soil to have a low clay content and low shrinkage potential. Would I be right in saying that this could support the removal of the tree as there is low potential for soil heave if the tree is removed, also could this support retaining the tree as there is low potential for subsidence problems? The owner of the house is very keen to have the tree removed due to safety reasons and worried about further damage to the house. There appears to be no major signs of any structural defects so no real rounds to remove the tree as Dead, Dying or Dangerous or causing any real nuisance to the properties walls etc. I feel the tree is of high value and should be retained. The owner should be responsible for managing the safety of the tree by having the tree aerially inspected etc to pick up on any evident defects. Any one had any other experiences of such a scenario?

Paul, Thanks for your comments. This is not one I want to make any haste decisions on. Anyone else care to comment?? Steve