Bundle 2

Aye, that is my take on it....E & F represent the same thing (arrived at mathematically by the same formula) but essentially aim to weed out confusion by depicting both scenarios...Fair enough ! For some reason, I rather had a notion that the stem diameters for the various limbs measured under the convention set in F were simply added together, thus arriving at a stem diameter.... Just chick'n....! cheers

Hey people... I have a question about the new BS...! I dont mean to labour the point but I suspect I have the stem definitions a little confused...! Whats the accepted take of measurement (F) It reads like a multi-stemmed tree (..of tree with more than 1 stem @ 1,5m...etc ) which makes it the same measurement convention as (E). Is this the accepted interpretation can anyone tell me ? ( Annex C appears in "normative ref" in the document...! ) cheers

A little unclear.... You mean, it fails entirely to qualify the equation with any meaningful explanation...! You are quite right. If it is something you had wondered about for yourself, you should take it as read that it means, the radius of the PrZ is (=) 4 times the circumference of the tree. Apparently, they used to state that drip line was enough when they realised that fastigiate trees simply didnt fall into this neat categorisation - hence the change ! It is rather the obvious conclusion but I dont like taking things for granted....stupifyingly, I wondered if they meant 4xcir of tree = circum of PrZ Anyway, that sorts that one out...Nice one !

The govt has sen fit to relax planning application legislation in an attempt to boost the economy. I wonder what implications have been overlooked in these proposals....( TPO's for example, Conservation areas and more...! ) Interesting times....! Planning Portal - Superfast broadband planning regime changes proposed

I think you have it Rob...! edit ( these iPhone cameras are very good are they not !!? )

BS5837 4.2.4 c)

All good... I have not been so easily persuaded by this one however... My photos are not showing a very stout, and rounded abdomen on the example I photographed. What do you think ? Epistrophe grossulariae

Couple points...measurements are specified @ 1.5m in the British Standard... I agree that neighbouring trees of significance ( likely to present a constraint ? ) should be included in some way. The above suggestions make good sense. The answer is in the British Standard ( all but saying so) as it describes how to categorize (Table 1 ) and elsewhere within the text. ( it tends to repeat itself a bit Ive noticed !!) Not saying there's no need to ask - discussion is healthy Im sure. To some extent, I think you could take a position in line with BS5837 as it states, even end use of neighbouring land must be considered...! Nice idea but in reality, quite likely a simple impracticality !

This may seem a rather stupid question, and in many ways it is Im afraid ! Could someone please confirm for me a detail regarding the precautionary zone, described as 4 x tree circumf... This must surely indicate that the radius of said PZ = 4 x tree circumf...? cheers Tim

BTW...I keep the only house amongst my neighbours on this 'ere estate that isnt paved to the hilt....! I keep the grass long and the hedges unkempt, never cutting what flower there is until after . There are pockets of this Fine City (Norwich) that has no sparrows at all ! I cant get rid the blighters...they raise 2 broods I reckon, getting fat on the proceeds of my beekeeping...! It was funny to watch them learning to take the bees without getting stung. And watching them in turn get picked off by sparrow hawks ! Im not mr tidy house wash me car Im afraid !!

Fair enough. I just figured that without a visual I was going to struggle ! I mean, a hover fly, fine but I didnt know that much for sure ! And so it was that I asked, confident that it would be recognised by an arb perhaps, as I know some are interested in aspects that relate to our work , extra curricula if you will !! By terminalogy, I trust you dont mean the specific entomological definition huh !!

Yeah...looks right to me. Nice one ! I am amused by wikipedia's comment about bee mimicry being a deterrent agianst birds eating them....the birds here love eating my bees. They are constantly flitting down & picking them off ! cheers.....

I have seen this fly in the past month(s) One I found expired in the bottom of a beehive. It had been dispatched by bees I suspect ! I have found it interested apparently in the hives but no means solely attracted by the beehives - does anyone know what it is please?

This is interesting ,even it is only vaguely related to our world of trees ! Nature - Tardigrades: Water bears in space

Oh dear...I cant even find a copy of the draft document on tinternet ! Looks like I"ll have to buy a copy unless someone can help me out !!

edit -: This for anyone else who finds themselves needing to confront the changes.... Stephen's Blog - BS 5837:2012 - An Insider's Guide to the changes ( I wish editing posts was allowed on here.....!)

I wonder if a learned member could enlighten me as to how accurately the draft document is replicated in the new standard at all ? I need to bring myself up to date and will have no use of the standard post exams, hence my reluctance to go out and pay for one....!

I would like to know where I can obtain a copy of the BS5837:2012 document please.... Have there been significant changes to NHBC & NJUG since last year at all....? TIA

Didnt you know wooly aphid is a fungus.....! So in fact, not even fasciation eh. Galls. I shoulda looked a bit more closely methinks!

others.....

Some images by way of a description of the symptoms of this Crabbie. It has started to decline , this year for the first time. Clearly, there appear several symptoms, I would say a fungal problem....? I wondered if others are seeing similar problems on ornamental fruits this year- and what it's underlying cause may be ? ( 1-4 ; trees canopy is taking a hit ! 2,this is fungal and shows the wood fasciation ...3,extensive fungal colonisation of younger wood as well as 4, colonising failed fruits and disrupted (fasciated) growth- no , that "blob" is a growth and fungul bloom covering it !) IME - which isnt extraordinary, I might be tempted to think bacterial but it is not acting alone here ?

iv) qualify the scope of exempted works (particularly in respect of dead, dying and dangerous trees) and clarify the requirement for prior notification; Isnt this going to lead to orders that (try) to preempt the condition of a tree somewhere in the future....? " The changes will make the system easier for local authorities to administer and they will be more able to consider applications for consent to carry out works to trees that are to be repeated on an annual or regular basis, or for a series of operations over a stated period;" I guess this is already a requirement and there is good sense in it..... I understood "dying" was to be removed...but the first para above seems a little pointless ! Have I misunderstood the context ? Why reiterate that which is set out in the legislation unless there is an overriding lack of confidence in the TCP(Tree Preservation) ( England) 2012- so then sort it proper?

What a seemingly pointless exercise in wasting time, money and amenity ! 1) Can you really be expected to shoulder responsibility for the future stability of the tree ? 2) As above only re longterm health of the tree? ( assuming it stands up ok ) 3) How realistic is the proposal of "No dig" ? ( I refer to alterations of levels etc ) If planning has been granted and as Paul says, cannot be revoked, surely if it can be argued that the proposals cannot be undertaken without stepping beyond the remit ( ie-retention) then you cannot be held responsible for simply carrying out the tasks for which you are hired ? At the end of the day...I d take the view that a) if you dont do the work, someone else almost certainly will & b) the specification is not your own and despite repeated professional observations and recommendations made by yourself regarding concerns highlighted above ( which you should elocute to the appropriate party,in writing, politely ) your client was aware of the risks and wanted to continue anyway ! Its that or walk away Id guess.....?

From my experience, it does not matter how qualified you are, it will never be enough for some people, whilst others will swear blind experience is everything ! As far as the law goes, I dont think there is a minimum requirement as to qualified. Guidance and precedents seem all to point to somewhat unquantified statements about "suitably qualified" whilst never finding the need to somehow qualify the wording...Not very helpful ! The PTI is well regarded...It would depend who you worked for in the final analysis perhaps....some outfits only want you to be a member of the AA ! The bottom line is, the more you know, the more you know- I guess.

Hi Verena, I cannot claim to recall with much accuracy, the points allocated to the survey but think it was not more than 12 ! That said, I would agree that remaining contribution can be somewhat subjective and other aspects they have highlighted in their response to you are not worth enough marks for you to become overly concerned with. The other half of the question was perhaps 8 marks..hopefully others can clarify this for us? I felt it had to be said because whilst you may feel you can get 2 measley points out of the survey and spec, and Im sure you could....you have lost significant marks somewhere else in the paper. I simply wonder if it would be more effective to concerntrate on these ? The reason for posting relates to the forthcoming BS5837....I will eat my hat if it ever gets released on time but once available, I would consider a days training with Treelife as they will undoubtedly cover the new paper and may run a workshop specifically to help bring folk upto speed..? Anyway, hope it is some help !