Jon Heuch

If Xylella gets to Holland it will be the end of their industry; if it gets here we might as well give up! It is an interesting point and I will pass it on! Jon

I was informed yesterday that TreeAlert was updated around a year ago but they haven't really told many people, to prevent overloading the system......however, they also want to get people reporting significant diseases. The changes I have been made aware of: 1) it's no longer an app so you need a tablet or desktop; using a mobile phone is probably not going to work 2) file sizes of photos no longer restricted. You will need photos 3) considerably greater information required - thus the dropping of the phone app The outcome of this is that they are receiving much better & useful reports e.g. Chalara reports have gone up from 2% to 25% correct. They are particularly keen on receiving reports for the Observatree priorities Pests and diseases Observatree – the official project website and whilst TreeAlert doesn't provide a form that could be taken into the field Observatree does http://www.observatree.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/TA-checklist1.pdf So please keep your eyes open and pass on your findings when you get the chance. I said I would let 20,000 people know about it today so hope you are all there.....are there really 20,000 people receiving this? (don't reply all at once!)

Download and Read Observatree – the official project website In coming weeks Observatree will upload several different disease Guidebooks; each will be for a separate disease and at present there are only two - Dothistroma red band needle blight and Chestnut Oriental Gall wasp. These will be loaded with photographs for identification in the field and the Forestry Commission are mass producing them for their staff. They are intended for the Observatree volunteers and the 21 priority pests (some of which aren't here yet) they are monitoring, so there won't be comprehensive cover. There is also a calendar: http://www.observatree.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/OTREE-Priority-PD-Overview-calendar-SF-final3.pdf

So you need an answer for your course work? I would refer you to RICS and their valuation framework provided by the Red Book........well that might be a bit much to take for a college exercise. RICS starts a valuation exercise off with identifying a "basis" appropriate for the exercise. A basis is a statement of the fundamental measurement assumptions of a valuation......it's a useful definition for a college essay! The question for the Helliwell system (and for CAVAT) is what is its "basis"? What makes a Helliwell point worth anything and therefore how does a tree have any value at all? Of course, there isn't one...at least not in any transparent manner.....trouble is, there wasn't one when the system was first introduced (The Tree Council have been through their records and can't find one!) and every year any adjustment for inflation just builds upon the previous poor foundation. The basis for CAVAT is slightly stronger in that it attempts to work off "cost" and then "replacement cost" but it is weak on the depreciation bit (depreciated replacement cost being a recognised RICS basis, but the least preferred, to be used as a last resort) and has failed to learn the lessons of CTLA in that it does not use the adjustment for trunk formula (leading to very large values for large trees).

Ah ha! No it is not......well it is confused and confusing. I believe CTLA is widely used in the US. I Tree incorporates a CTLA valuation (the software used to use the 8th version rather than the 9th, but being non-transparent it is difficult to tell) but the main part of it is not based on CTLA. You need to read......well, it's pretty well hidden, so I can't point you to a single document. The I Tree manual (there are several and a new version comes out from time to time) tells you how to collect data in the field, collate, process etc but tells you next to nothing about value and valuation. I Tree produces two types of valuation based on the same field data: it produces values for a small number of ecosystem services (carbon, water retention, pollution reduction) and quite separately uses CTLA to produce a replacement/structural value. If you don't read the reports carefully, there is an implication that in some way the two are linked - they are not. Journalists and the media however are happy to pick up the CTLA structural value and relate it to ecosystem services......which is politically useful but just plain wrong. However, that is not the message people want to hear!

.....and to answer your query, as others have done.....if one element scores "0" then the amenity value is "0".

Until you have a clear idea as to why you are attempting to put a monetary value on a tree it's impossible to advise you as to what to do.....so please tell us. There is not one system that addresses all issues. Both Helliwell and CAVAT are both artificial constructs with clear pitfalls......but it does depend on what you are trying to do as to whether these are of significance or not. If your reason is anything to do with Court and/or formal compensation (as opposed to attempting to resolve a dispute informally) I would use neither.....but I have used both as by the time I am involved typically someone has attempted to resolve the issue with one, the other or both.

Claymaster Ground Heave Protection Solutions for Clay | Cordek | Cordek http://www.sedgemoor.gov.uk/BCservices/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=8993 (p27 concerns floor slabs, not foundations Cellcore HX S - Under Slab Ground Heave Solutions | Cordek .......this is well away from arboriculture.......! and remember this needs to be put in at the time of building construction, not once you have discovered you have a large tree needing removal!

This is a complex issue and not one that an arboricultural consultant should have much to say on.....unless they have experience of heave and know what procedures to follow.....typically with the guidance of a structural engineer.....and it's easier just to ask the SE to do it! So what does it take to assess the risk? It requires an assessment of whether there is a persistent moisture deficit in the soil over the whole soil profile (to at least 4 metres depth) and that cannot be done by looking at a tree! It also requires some complex assumptions/calculations. Once done it requires an assessment of whether the structure can withstand the measure of soil expansion calculated.....another thing that an arboricultural consultant should not be doing....so a light structure (e.g. a wall) is much more likely to be affected than a heavier one (e.g. a house). It is also useful to know the type of foundations that have been used; if the house is relatively recent and the tree was present when it was built we might hope that the foundations would have utilised anti-heave measures i.e. if heave was a possibility then it could have occurred when the foundations were installed .......so the house has a built in mechanism against soil expansion. In conclusion, heave is not a common problem and most houses can put up with a bit of soil expansion; just make sure your house insurance covers heave and forget the risk.....there is not a lot you can do about it - after all the tree may die so what are you going to do then?

This is similar to both my advice and actions. I would add that it is useful to give a specific date to the tree owner when the roots will be cut and suggesting to them that it might be useful if their arboricultural consultant attended on that day to make their appraisal of tree stability. Depending on the circumstances it is also useful to let the tree owner be aware that they will be responsible for any consequences of tree failure as a result of their inaction. This is likely to pour petrol onto an inflamed neighbour dispute so words need to be chosen carefully.

mind you if you're really interested in big trees you need to consider the great Banyan of Calcutta botanic garden: http://tinyurl.com/zrvof55 Google street view (watch the blue dots) actually takes you inside....I can't find the main stem. Not quite a traditional large tree but does win the award for greatest canopy cover......100 metres diameter.....possibly almost 1 ha for the whole tree?

Sorry I don't have a picture of the top 50 metres. Ceiba spp if you're interested - Bia National Park, western Ghana. I thought it was pentandra (kapok) but on checking that's native to America so it's either another species or a weed

Whilst there may be exclusivity over the use of the word "Chartered" a profession can have as many professional bodies as it wants.....since it depends on members renewing memberships normally on an annual basis it's a simple market forces thing - if people thought the AA wasn't worth joining it wouldn't exist. As it happens membership has increased (as it has for the ICF too) so it must be doing something right. If you're interested in the Chartered thing there has been an interesting dispute in court recently over the Chartered Project Management Institute with two bodies arguing over who should get the Chartered status - the large US based one or the smaller UK based one. The whole issue of whether the AA is a trade body or a professional body or both....or neither is an interesting discussion. It clearly isn't a trade body in the normal sense of that term in that it doesn't promote the trades of the vast majority of members but it does promote both Approved Contractors and Registered Consultants. For similar reasons it's not a professional body in that the majority of members are not veted as competent so....not promoted. But it is the only body to cross across interest groups as a membership body. WIP: Work in Progress.......

1) Yes on an annual basis but this assumes a number of things: independence of data (not true) trees, old buildings and clay soil lead to claims being focused on particularly areas; if you are on non clay soils the chances of tree related subs is close to zero. 2) A claim is likely to go on for several years so perhaps 1% of buildings may be experiencing a subsidence claim at any one time. 3) Once your house has had subsidence, even though fixed, the owner has to declare this to the insurer and the insurer may alter their premium......so possibly 1 million houses out of the 4.7 million on clay should be ticking that box. There are a variety of insurance implications from this some of which leads to tree surveys, tree pruning and the like. Depending on what you are trying to do subsidence is an issue that possibly blights far more properties than the 0.23% per year figure implies.

Building regs do not apply to all structures particularly conservatorys

I would just look at a soil map and consider geological history. South of the Tees-Exe line the soils are dominated by clay, especially South-East England - much from glacial outwash. A 1% figure is clearly and obviously wrong. Whilst your comment on the insurance industry was cynical and it's right to be skeptical on any data source it's the only source of information we have on subsidence claims, other than from a few figures on tree claims from large land owners/managers such as local authorities.....although they rarely tell the whole story.

Not sure where your figure comes from but here is an insurance industry estimate: 17 million house insurance policies (there are over 20 million households but collectively owned houses won't have their own insurance) 40k subsidence insurance claims per year (varies per year) 4.7 million private houses located on soils with a PI > 20% Add all the claims since mid 1970s comes to close to 1 million affected properties........so you can work out the stats yourself......if your house isn't located on clay the chance of tree related subsidence is very very low; if it is located on clay over 1 million of the 4.7 million have been affected by it.......perhaps not as low as you might think.

I suggest you log them on the Tree Alert website. There are a number of things affecting sweet chestnut and being in Kent it's close to the continent. You will need to reduce the file size of the photos to log it .

So to establish that a loss is irrecoverable surely a claim would have had to be wholly or partially refused by the Council and for the Land Tribunal (aka Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) to also judge in that manner.......long after any window for appealing the tree work decision itself would have closed? As far as I am aware there is no merit in appealing the tree work decision if you are anticipating a compensation claim? And if your appeal is successful to the point of removing the potential for loss or damage then you have no compensation claim?

not quite irrelevant.....a claim for statutory compensation requires establishing the foreseeable "loss or damage" in consequence of a refusal which may be easier than establishing both a duty of care and breach of it as well the foreseeability of consequences ....which may be hard. However, the tree work compensation may need to spell out what that loss or damage might be and its magnitude - that is what is normally done in tree work applications where the reason for removal is property damage i.e. subsidence. A claim for negligence may not require such detail - I will leave it to a lawyer to guide on the similarities and differences between statutory and civil claims.

The reality is that if an incident did occur in these circumstances a claim against the Council's insurers would be made......unless the Council was self-insuring. Evidence would need to be collected.....a few years may pass....and then the evidence would be weighed by both sides. It is possible that a claim would be decided before a judge or a court ever saw anything - one side would blink and make an assessment of their chances of winning and the costs of loosing. Only where both sides think they have a reasonable chance of winning will a judge be given the chance to give a judgment.........so whilst the "law" of negligence may be clear many claims will be decided before the Courts are mobilised. If someone (individually, collectively or corporately) has been negligent and can be shown to have been negligent - with aspects of duty of care etc as part of this - some liability may accrue to the Council........but if a tree surgeon made a shoddy tree work application without appropriate evidence and investigation then the tree surgeon might also be at risk of being pursued. Whether they are, or not, may depend on whether they have the appropriate insurance, qualifications and put pen to paper with a view to providing professional advice ......it all becomes very fact-dependent.

UK Law Reports & Case Law Search | ICLR | The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting LEARNING ZONE CASE LAW: SOMETIMES LESS IS MORE will allow you to quote more directly.

1) I wasn't aware that they had attempted anything; I am sure there is an art to it, but this can only come from experience. I once got bamboo seedlings to flower using hormones....great excitement.....all reproduceable now....but the first step was luck stepping in. 2) I doubt whether hormones "build up"; they are fragile molecules, possibly light sensitive, so you need a flow or a source that keeps delivering them during cell differentiation. Clearly moisture is required. Shade is a mixed blessing as a bit of warmth is also useful to get cells working. 3) Well, they're mine but on the edge of a country road. 4) 5,10,15 cm. They have been turned into Disney-style, small-Champs Elysee style cubes due to the proximity of the house and the need to maintain 5 metre clearance over the road....and my broadband wire which runs over the top of them. 5) The cats used to jump from the branches into the bedroom window at night..not so nice when they arrived with either live or half eaten prey. ...

I doubt whether you have "callus" tissue (it's unlikely to be found naturally), just laterally spreading cambial cells from which the shoots have appeared. Your picture looks like my beech pollards all of 2 metres from my bedroom window - regularly pollarded over the last 17 years! In terms of encouraging further regrowth have you considered ring barking or at least wounding below the cut? I imagine that a key part in encouraging shoot growth is to get the hormone levels right. By removing any green matter above you've removed the main source of auxin, but the living cells may well then be overrun by root hormones.....cut them back (but not to eliminate them) and you may get a better response.