Jon Heuch

It's a nice soundbite; is that what we're doing in Syria then with Assad or IS? How about persuading that nice Mr Putin to comply with the international treaty (apparently that the UK is a signature to) guaranteeing Ukraine's soverignty over Crimea? Should we get to know him and then he will withdraw from Ukraine? Good to see our friendly words in Saudi Arabia are having such a powerful influence......not! And of course Mr Mugabe just loves what we have to say to him! Let's get real; China is a large country with a fifth of the human race. It has real power. It has a language (and probably lots of languages) and a script that the majority of us wouldn't know where to start with so "getting to know them" has some challenges (unless of course they come to British Universities and learn English). I read in the newspaper that whilst the Chinese President was being shown around the new Manchester Graphene Centre China registered about 1,000+ more graphene patents last year than we did in the UK. The Chinese couldn't really give a stuff about what our friendly words might say. The UK is in a highly competitive situation with an element of being a spent force but with quite a lot up our sleeve. We've managed to keep the pound afloat by selling just about everything we have to foreigners. We've handed quite a few powers to Brussels and Strasbourg so our politicians find their hands tied in many ways. I just wonder what will happen when we have nothing left to sell and speculative property owners (e.g.China) decide there is a better place to rest their money. The steel industry situation is just an indicator of what is to come in other industries if we fail to cow-tow to them. e.g. We want to tax the finance industry so they make noises about going elsewhere.....so we can't. I feel really sorry for people dependent on tax credits and I don't see any English politicians providing the leadership required. As for the Salmond Sturgeon effect I just wonder what would happen if the door they are pushing against opened and they had to implement what they are saying with oil prices so low. The reality is that politicians have to spin these unbelievable yarns in an attempt to keep us, the voters on board. Sickening!

The very same question I asked Ian Rotherham (Editor) and Karen Martin (CEO) at Conference. Apparently papers for Issue 2 and most of 3 are with Taylor and Francis and as you can see on their website papers for Issue 2 are (almost all) available electronically now but have yet to be printed. Once complete Issue 2 will be printed and on its way to members and subscribers. Issue 3 should not be far behind.....so it's not as bad as it seems. Jon

Does not the presence (or absence) of heartwood play a role? And not just heartwood, but damp heartwood? Dry dead wood will degrade much more slowly and be much less use (as food) than damp wood; however, structures such as holes may last longer if the wood is dry. So large trees with decaying heartwood that is not exposed to sun and other drying factors may be very valuable as habitat. As for the temperature effect I think this is probably more significant in northerly climes (much of the UK) but as you go further south shade might be more valuable in keeping temperatures down and preserving moisture.

Is the AA not doing this, or has it passed to the FC?

Trouble with this research, other than stating the obvious that trees provide shade and cooling, is that Manchester is a cold, wet miserable place and a bit less shade might make it a bit more tolerable. And if it ever did get a bit hot on a few days of the year, go and buy a fan or even an air conditioner! We can learn a lot from the people of Manchester, who, in all those hot stinking days in Manchester when they are gasping for a bit of shade do what? Head to the airport to go somewhere a bit warmer! I am of course joking to some degree but the blinkered logic of more-trees-must-be-good because, god help us, climate change is going to make life SO unbearable needs to be challenged. May be too many Smilies?

It has happened before and gone to court - Sevenoaks. A surveyed tree fell and killed someone. The HA has the right but not the duty, if I remember correctly. The responsibility lies with the tree owner (but I'm not sure in that case what happened to the tree owner - the issue focused on whether the HA was responsible, and they were not). Jon

Yes, but you really want to avoid the cost of gathering evidence and witness statements and possible engagement of lawyers. Significant costs and waste of senior management time. it's nice to know you may have a defence but if it only comes into play once you are in Court you could be seriously out of pocket. I am intrigued to know how the words "the person who served that notice" should be interpreted - does that imply that both the applicant and their agent have to be served the TPO (separately) or just one (either one), assuming that the applicant and agent are one and the same?

You might want to do some research - parenthesis refers to the explanatory text added, not to the punctuation at the beginning or end of the text."Within the parentheses" is a term used that implies that the word parenthesis refers to the punctuation....incorrectly. And you can use commas, instead of brackets, if you wish. "Instead of brackets" is an example of a parenthesis. Jon

[quote The most annoying problem I have come across and this goes for most Council Tree Officers . They never answer the bloody phone or have a retarded message that says they are out of the office at the moment so leave a message or a call back . ****** They are always out of the pigging office . Many never even return your call I really do believe that a Tree Officer should first of all spend time on the tools and then progress So maybe they are out of the office giving pre-application advice? Or dealing with all the multiple applications with options that you keep submitting? And does experience on the tools help with answering the phone? Undoubtedly a system that accumulates TPOs and extends conservation areas inevitably increases the workload for a declining number of tree officers. Something has to give as it is frustrating for all.

The issue of subjectivity should not be seen as a "problem" if dealt with clearly and transparently. The rules are this: i) Layout the facts; focus on the facts which reflect how the various criteria in the BS5837 Cascade chart e..g "impaired condition", "life expectancy" etc. Clearly there is an element of subjectivity for issues such as life expectancy and you might need to be clear what you mean by life expectancy e.g. if a veteran tree is falling apart but will be still alive would it have a LE > 40 years (don't start LE is a big issue). ii) Do not state an opinion without reference to the facts iii) Show clearly the link between your opinion and the facts. Your opinion becomes a lot more impregnable once clearly based on undisputed facts. BS5837 reports are not full reports that allow you to state all the reasons why you might classify a tree as A/B/C/U, but if there is a dispute use the basic rules above and you should be able to see through the mud of a disagreement. Jon

Almost a hornbeam then?

I feel you are looking at this problem very much from your point of view alone. What of a new tree officer looking at the same TPO a few years later with no knowledge of the fell and replacement, especially if there is a species change? How about a new purchaser of the property who is given a copy of the "old" TPO? There is a reference to a tree that is no longer present, but on the ground there is a young established tree - one that would not merit a TPO in the first instance. Possibly the tree is in a slightly different location from the TPO plan. As above, what if there has been a species change. They remove the tree. How do you prosecute?

David Your Martian does come to mind....would that be 50% uncertain or 100%? Jon PS I do believe you have a slot at the AA Conference - I await to hear it with interest!

We're a bit off TRAQ here (off track I mean!). A valuation system, just like a risk assessment system, requires backup. QTRA is supported by a significant training effort and a few people who have spent a considerable effort at updating manuals and documentation. The Helliwell system has been highly dependent on one person, who has now retired. The AA's role in it reflects a certain momentum and inertia rather than deliberate effort, at least since 2006. CAS doesn't favour, as far as I know, CTLA over any other valuation system. My training course (now being run for the third time) looks at all valuation systems/methods as far as they are in the public domain with equal, but critical, oversight. It's the only course that covers CTLA but without the institutional support that, for example, QTRA gets it is inevitably weaker, whatever its strengths are. The role(s) of our professional bodies is vital in the development, maintenance and continuity of these systems and it is just sad that we are so fragmented so that efforts are piecemeal. Jon

Ha ha well there was a recent case Distinctive Props v DCLG [2015] EWHC 729 (Admin) recently circulated in which the judge summarised the TPO law clause by clause. Even he missed out the addition of 210(1)©.....and the case involved a TPO prosecution! So a judge can't get it right! I wonder what they rely on? I had to check again but how do I know that somewhere someone hasn't added and then deleted 210(1)©? Jon

Arborists (call them what you will if you don't like the term) have a tendency to avoid or divert this sort of debate with the "well someone used it in Court, so it must be OK" argument. Remember, any system - risk assessment, valuation, root growth or other technical matter - got into Court because an expert took it in. Barristers and judges can apply common sense but are unlikely to engage on technical details. The credibility of any system in Court relies on a number of factors - its provenance, its widespread acceptance, its usefulness. If two experts agree in Court over the use of any system the Court (Judge, jury, barristers/advocates (for those North of the border) may still disagree). So the fact that someone has quoted QTRA in Court merely reflects that the expert (or other witness) thought it worthwhile to do so; nothing more. We can say a system has been tested in Court but it's not really the place for testing all aspects of a system - peers, professional bodies and experience in use should be significant parts of the process of testing.

Almost right but: i) the three references to "tree preservation order" need to change to "tree preservation regulations" .....that change is buried in the Planning Act 2008 s13. I have picked up two of the changes but haven't recorded where the third one comes from. However, it makes sense for both to change as there is now nothing in a TPO to comply with - everything has moved to the regulations. ii) You need to add s210(1)c "causes or permits the carrying our of any of the activities in paragraph (a) or (b)" see Planning Act 2008 s13 (2)© As for S210(2)(b) I don't have a record of this being deleted. However, reading the revised (2) there is no point in retaining (2)(b). Isn't life fun! Jon

Ha bloody ha! Yes it's possible to go around in circles on this....one Act changes another and then further changes to both Acts....I thought that was what the legislation.gov.uk website was all about....but it is never up to date. As for Schedule 8 of the Planning Act 2008.....I end up in a heap every time I try to disentangle it. Jon

Indeed the delightly named THE LEGAL AID, SENTENCING AND PUNISHMENT OF OFFENDERS ACT 2012 (FINES ON SUMMARY CONVICTION) REGULATIONS 2015 which mobilises the relevant parts of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 will tell you all........NOT! It's terrible stuff. Wait until someone who knows what they are talking about distils it into plain old English. However, what it is useful for, is working out which Council website/expert/lawyer/arborist is up to date and which are not. Jon

Indeed. Why do you think a fungus was involved? Could just be poor root development. Let the insurance company deal with it.

There is a housing crisis in this country but that is also related to a geographic one - too few affordable houses in SE England (and elsewhere) and in other areas no jobs so you can hardly give (poor quality) houses away. How does a policy of handing over HA houses to their residents help this problem? Answer: it doesn't but it sure seems to be a way of buying votes. The source of the problem is not just divorce and a few feckless individuals. Migration, people living longer and second homes in some places all play roles as do green belts, NIMBYs and the planning system. If there was an easy answer I am sure we would have heard of it by now! However, reducing the stock of social housing seems like a sure way of making matters worse for some sections of society.

Phytophthora lateralis survey This survey will be closing now at the end of April 2015. We have not had huge numbers of responses - one in the New Forest area should be followed up soon - so if you have come across any dead or dying lawson cypress please put your findings in ASAP. Thanks

I sympathise but how important nomenclature is will depend upon what you are doing: If you are trying to tell people what you are working on and most people you are communicating with haven't caught up with the latest changes it probably doesn't matter. I found out this week that Chalara is now Hymenoscyphus fraxineus......with reference to a 2014 publication; I am still trying to work out what the correct latin name is for leyland cypress...but it seems to change quite regularly. I am sure some nurseries will use old latin names and some might be trying to keep up to speed. If you are dealing with something as difficult as Phytophthora species you may have a problem; I learnt today that "hybridisation" is not the right concept - horizontal transfer of genetic material between "species" is possible; so you are dealing with a moving feast. If you are searching for information you probably want to know about the various names as if you just use the new name you won't find any of the old information e.g. Eucalyptus is a very good term to use! So what to do - refer to as many of the names as you are aware of and preferably use the authority at the end if it is at all important. Most of the older well established names are "L." for Linneaus. It's all about communication, not about being right. For the most part the name changes are cosmetic i.e. the splitters or the clumpers have not been at work, it's just that the taxonomists consider that things need to be grouped differently. You probably need to take more care if the change of name reflects splitting/clumping Jon