Andy Clark

And now you have, it makes a lot more sense. Would I be fairer then in saying that this is perhaps more of a learning curve for you on the use of the methodology's themselves, as opposed to a debate about the relevant application of the methodology's? Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Ermmmmm, no, not really. If the difference between the two are already recognised and acknowledged, then surely the application of a juxtaposition is perhaps pointless? Borderline even irrelevant? Amenity value as a standalone in arboriculture terms, especially in the uk, is well recognised as being a consideration, primarily in relation to stat controls (TPO/Cons. Area) as defined in the Act and relevant guidance papers in respect of a LA's duty to preserve trees (or indeed any such other amenity "object"). As there is almost no other stat controls for any party other than a local authourity to consider amenity value and thus preserve a tree based on that amenity value, it's application is almost irrelevant outside of the public sector realm. Even with 5837 and the requirement for trees with high amenity value to be retained, it is still the LA who adjudicates/assess the surveyors application of amenity value. Ok, JFL has put together the TEMPO methodology for evaluating amenity value as part of the TPO process, but overall it will always be a subjective matter, and only really of an relevance in a stat control situation. Asset value on the other hand, is the application of a monetary sum on the material "worth" of a tree in relation to a given topic. For calculating the asset value of a tree in relation to direct/indirect damge claims, we have CAVAT. For calculating the asset value of a tree in relation to it's ability for offsetting carbon we have I-TREE. Mortgage valuations tend to be the argumentative one, with the AA preferring Helliwell, and CAS preferring the CTLA methodology. (Or so I was last led to believe). All of the above is pretty well acknowledged across the board, by the arb industry and others, and proven to work in the given context of the situation, so I'm just really struggling to see why there needs to be this debate or what there is to be achieved by having it. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

I think that there seems to be confusion throughout this thread between "amenity value" and "asset value". The two are very different. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Silly question, but why? Most of the monetary valuation methodologies have been around for years now - and have been widely used in context of their relevant application, reviewed in the said same context, proven to work in the said same context, and therefore accepted by the industry and relevant related disciplines - including the insurance industry, as per the JMP, and mortgage valuation systems. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for pushing boundaries and challenging the establishments where things clearly don't work and subsequently need to change/improve, but equally "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". And to be fair, with the greatest of respect, I personally feel that that's why people aren't showing the interest in this thread that you had hoped for. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Google returns a very mixed bag of results - but you probably know that anyway. I get the vague impression that this could be an old publication that may have previously been available for download from the CIRIA website, but alas no more. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

The whole subject of valuation is as long and broad as the debate that revolves around it - primarily because of the many ways in which valuation can be/is applied, and also the now several systems that are in place that can be used to apportion a value. Ok, you've quoted the Helliwell system in your example, but of course we also have the CTLA system - favoured by the ISA; CAVAT - increasingly used to apportion a monetary value of an LA owned trees in conjunction with tree related subsidence insurance claims; and I-TREE - used to apportion a monetary value of the tree in conjunction with it usefulness at carbon offsetting etc. Used out of context, then these systems will invariably give a multitude of different values for a given model tree, so the most important factor, IMO, is that one of context. Right tool for the right job. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

A bit of an enigmatic question really, because you open with a hypothetical position - in so far that in it's healthy state, the tree would be "worth" £10k. But the tree isn't in a healthy state, so the hypothetical value is therefore irrelevant. In real terms, I would say that it comes down to a judgement call for the tree owner, taking into account their own unquantifiable "love" of the tree - vs quantifiable costs. In terms of costs alone, for example, the owner of the tree may be of limited means and lacking in ready cash, in which case the £250 for reduction may be the only available avenue - alternatively, if cash is no object, then the £1500 to fell and replant is the better option, knowing that the replacement tree has the possibility of reaching a reasonable value in years to come; in which case the £1500 would be a reasonably justifiable investment. Other avenues that could be offset as an investment against the value, could be to explore the possibility of "curing" the tree of it's ailments - depending on the fungal infection - with stem injection and other such treatments. But routes like that are one's that would favour the "love" factor of that particular tree, as opposed to the costs factor. It's almost a question of "how long is a piece of string" to be fair. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

How're you finding it? Sore? Achey? Fed up with the young pups trying to teach you new tricks? Or loving it? Like riding a bike? Showing the younguns that granny already knows how to suck eggs, thank you very much? Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Andy, Just as a point of interest then, professional footballers. Degree level education to be classified as professional? Or just bloody good at kicking a ball, to the point that they can make a living at it? Could the same then not be said for a climber/cutter/faller/groundie etc? Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Interesting that you pose the topic of academia as a benchmark of "professional" I'm gonna tell you a story..... In recent years I've delivered a training course to non-arbs on the subject of tree hazard awareness. The 2 day course is designed to get non arbs aware of the potential hazards that trees can pose - a bit of biology, explaining about cell growth and photosynthesis, a bit of shigo, explaining about decay patterns and CODIT, a bit of matthek and explaining about structural deformities and stresses etc...... all so that non-arbs out in the field can look at a tree and at least have a basic understanding of whether they should have any concerns and escalate the tree to me for a full inspection. I deliver the course shoulder to shoulder with a fully fledged external consultant. Degree educated, expert witness, the full shebang - meaning that we deliver the course together. Bouncing off each other over the course of the 2 days. Both in the classroom and out in the field. Every course starts the same way - with an introduction. I'm obviously already known in my organisation, so the intro is me introducing the consultant. Every intro goes the same way - with me explaining, in laymans terms, "what this man doesn't know about trees, isn't worth knowing". . And every time he replies with "Andy is far too kind. I'm scared stiff of heights and just never had the balls to do what he did and learn to climb - I only get to stand on the ground and lookl at trees, but he's got the ability to get up there and see it all up close". . And every time, I blush, humbled by the obvious display that he has as much respect for me, as I have for him. So is it not a question of the age old "jock vs geek" scenario? Should our own individual and personal skillset be the defining boundary of how we are perceived and represented in the industry? Am I any less of a professional arboriculturist, simply because I chose path through the practical side of the industry as opposed to the academic side? No, I don't think so. Granted, I can't stand up in court and give expert witness testimony of my opinion, but by the flip side, the consultant can't get to the top of a big mature Oak and look at a stress fracture up close and personal. So should one even be judged to be better, more professional, than the other? Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Ok, so add either the Bsc or Msc in Arboriculture and Urban Forestry into that mix, and would you still say that it's a trade? Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Ok, care to expand? Or are you saying that you see the whole of the industry as a trade, and everyone within it as a tradesman? Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Ok, a subject with soooooooooooo many different standpoints, views and opinions it doesn't bear trying to add them all up , and a subject that equally leads to more thread derailments than you can shake a stick at........ So let's have it out in the open, hopefully, once and for all. Is working in the Arboriculture industry a profession? Is an Arborist/Arboriculturist a professional? Who wants to go first? Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Ahh, but the thread is not about "us", it's about Joe Public, and their perception/ignorance/understanding of "us", of what "we" do and of why "we" do it. "We" all know that 99.9% of "us" work to 3998. No one's saying otherwise. The same could equally be said that "we" all know that when faced with requests to bosh the top off, 99.9% of "us" would then happily stand there for 10 minutes trying to explain to the client that "Well madam, reduction doesn't really work in allowing more light into your garden - primarily because light travels in straight lines, but also because crown reduction in most cases only goes to promote the tree to form a lower, denser crown in the longer term, which then just goes to block more light. Sooooooo, if you want more light into your garden, I would actually suggest a crown thinning exercise, combined with a subtle crown lift, achieved by removing some of the lower sub laterals, which will then let more light flow THROUGH the crown". and so on and so on........ So the point, is why, when "we" stand there, prattling on and giving "our" advice/recommendation/opinion/specifcation/quotation/approval/refusal for works, relative to whatever our individual job role may be in the industry, in accordance with 3998 or any other best practice/guidance, does Joe Public gaze back at "us" like we're talking gobbledegook? Why has Joe Public asked us to Bosh it in the first place, and made us stand there for 10 mins and explain that boshing is not the right thing to do? Why does the water/gas/electric/cable tv engineer look at the TO like he's grown a second head, when the TO turns up and tries to explain that trenching through the rootplate of a mature specimen Oak is likely to 1) kill the tree, and 2) leave it at risk of falling over cos you'll have just cut through the things that hold it in the ground? Why, and I'm referring to Joe Public as a whole, not just homeowners in domestic dwellings, as the same could very easily be said for businesses/business premises etc, do we generally as a nation not have a better understanding of trees and/or arb? Less confusing? Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Oh and one other thing...... Arboriculture is most definitely not Rocket Science! Rocket Science comes under "Physics", whereas Arboriculture comes under "Biology" . Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Well we seem to be getting a broad mix of opinions, from and equally broad mix of folk. I guess like most things, it's a subjective question really - in as much that generally the answers are going to be governed by the individuals own relative experiences in dealing with Joe Public at their own relative level. With regards to the "Profession/Professional/Professionalism" debate, I want to nip that in the bud with this - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional - and follow it by saying that you're all wrong AND all right. But that's a different kettle of fish. Lol. I sat reading through the replies throughout last night and this morning, and started to think about why I asked the question, what answers I was expecting to see., and what would my own answer be to my own question. (Yes, I really do need to get a life!). For me, relative to my own experience, the answer is not so much of how Joe Public views trees and Arb, but more a case of "why" do they/don't they view trees and arb with more importance? I'm gonna stick with the example that's been given for a moment here........ Granted, to an individual, boshing the top off to give more light into the garden may very well be important, but will the works that they're requesting to be carried out solve the problem that they have in the first place? Yeah, of course it will....... For about a year, maybe 2. 3 at tops. But then with the reactive growth that will almost inevitably follow, their initial problem is in fact only going to get worse in the longer term. So why, after all these millions of years of being surrounded by trees on this green and pleasant island of ours, don't Joe Public "get it"? And another consideration, in view of the litigious society that we find ourselves in these days, is that why is getting more light into the garden figuring so highly on their agenda, but yet the matter of whether the tree, in the longer term, is safe, sound, likely to fail or likely to fall is not even an utterance? I mean tree liability payouts are well up in the £millions these days, and the case law precedents are setting a pretty clear pathway as to how the law expects trees to be managed and maintained - but yet I bet that, proportionally, more people across the country ask for boshing the top off to let more light in, than ask for a condition survey to ascertain whether the tree is even healthy. And I bet more people ask to "make sure you do a good job of clearing up" than ask to "make sure all your cuts are made in accordance to 3998". I must of course add that other tree work operations are also available - - boshing the top off to cut down on leaf fall - boshing the top off to stop squirrels getting on the roof - boshing the top off to cut down on conkers/acorns/berries etc - boshing the top off "cos the tree is too tall and tall trees are dangerous" and of course my own personal favourite..... - boshing the top off "cos the tree is overgrown" I'm joking of course, but I think the jist of my point is pretty clear. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

In a moment of pondering today, a thought played out through my mind........ "What is Joe Public's understanding of trees and Arboriculture?" Like most of us on here, I come into contact with the public on a daily basis - and often, as a representative of our industry, as a lover of trees, as someone who just loves the job I do, I find myself faced with a blank stare in return, whilst I stand and prattle on about things that, to me, are second nature. Stuff I take for granted. Why is that? We are, supposedly, a green and pleasant island nation, with a very long historic importance of trees, forestry, timber etc. Our roads are lined with them. Our towns and city are surrounded by them. We walk our dogs in woodlands full of them. As kids (some of us) played in them. Our gardens are laden with them. But yet as a populous, Joe Public, generally, seems totally oblivious to anything tree or Arb related. . Thoughts? Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

A lot of it would depend on at what point in the process are you being involved. A lot of developers and LPA's will possibly have dealt with this within the planning consent stage, in as far that the LPA willl, as part of the planning conditions, stipulated any site constraints for granting planning consent - such as imposing the condition for a BS 5837 survey, Arb and/or ecological impact assessments etc. Ask the developer for copies of these, plus a copy of the consent, and familiarise yourself with what has happened/been imposed prior to your involvement. If the developer is evasive, or if you find that any conditions have been imposed and not met, then walk away. At the end of the day, it's your neck on the line if you fell, lop, top, uproot etc a TPO'd tree, not the developers. So as long as you're happy that you've covered yourself, don't give a monkeys if the developer isn't happy. "The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth, is those people who are living a lie". Walking away from a job and loosing a couple of hundred/thousand, is better than £25k fine, plus costs, plus damages for loss of amenity asset, plus the stigma against your own reputation if it all goes wrong. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

"Technically" there is no specified minimum crown height, over either road or footpath. The 5-6m and 2-3m "rule" is more just what is commonly adopted and acknowledged common sense, based on the height of a person, and the height of a high vehicle. Overall, the Highways Act makes it a requirement to allow safe and unobstructed passage for users of the highway - which includes the threat of dead/dying/dangerous trees within striking distance of the highway, obstruction of street lamps, obstruction of views at junctions...... etc. Mostly it will depend on how vigilant/picky the LA Highway Inspectors are. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Ahh, got the season pass so won't be paying for the Apocalypse DLC.

Sooooooo then folks, 4th and final DLC comes out tomorrow! Woooo-hooooooooo. Did anyone ever get an arbtalk clan going?

The big wider issue in this, is that there is absolutely zero formal guidance, specifically for LA's, for the LA TO to work from - resulting in the TO trying to pick the best from the random bunch of general guidance docs that serve the wider purpose of the Arb world in general. Folk have historically tried to campaign and lobby for the creation of an "Amenity Tree Commission", segregated from the Forestry Commission, and established to purely focus on Arboriculture as opposed to Forestry, but it always seems to get very little support from the industry and so generally tends to fall on deaf ears at the Central Gov level. Granted, the some of the TOAssociations et al have previously issued guidance notes for LA's on the overall establishment of a "Tree Policy", but the specific contents of said policy are all still left to the individual TO to define - and usually then based on a collection of standpoints in Law, such as the avoidance and rectification of Actionable Nuisance and Health and Safety issues, with a smattering of political influence thrown in for good measure, and then jiggled to fit available budgets. Here's my general rule of thumb "what we will/won't do" stuff, that covers not only our own works, but also the pruning requests that we get.... "We have a dedicated database for trees in communal areas, and all are surveyed regularly. We carry out maintenance work on trees in communal areas according to priority. We also carry out reactive works to: - dangerous trees or parts of trees - trees that are blocking footpaths or roads - trees that are causing direct damage to property, such as branch or root encroachment damage - trees that are causing indirect damage to property, such as tree related subsidence. We do not usually agree to prune trees that are causing: - loss of light/reduced light to properties (except in extreme cases) - effects on TV or mobile phone reception - obstruction of views - interference with private vegetation - obstruction of utility cables (these are the responsibility of the provider or cable owner) - minor or seasonal issues such as -* - honeydew (dripping sap) - bird droppings - squirrels gaining access to properties from trees - leaf, fruit or flower fall. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Look at it a different way - You say that your client has checked land registry, and that has shown there to be no owner. The tree has already caused damage, and, given that there is no clear owner and that the LA are trying to walk away, it would be fair to assume that there is both a) no inspection regime in place, and b) no maintenance plan in place - and also that there never will be either of the above in place - hence the tree will only continue to be neglected, and therefore possibly liable to future collapse/drop events. Ok, granted, we've only talked about the in's and outs of the legal/liability stuff, and so have no real knowledge of the tree, height, size, species, condition, maturity, SULE, amenity value etc, and are therefore flying blind here, but remember that the Common Law defence is that fantastic perspective of Reasonableness. Given the above, and the known likely future of the tree, and again, stating clearly on the big bold note the clear intention to fell the tree if no owner comes forward, then I'd be confident that removal would be justified and could be defended. . We used to do it all the time with subs claims - which, ok, different perspective, in so far that the tree as a whole entity was causing indirect damage, but we never looked at heavy pruning remedies (which some do argue as a reasonable remedy), we just used to fell. So let's work a bit more on the details...... What's the tree like? Good condition, nice specimen? Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

The "land of unknown ownership" stuff is easy peasy. Nail a big bold note on the tree, and post it in several local and national newspapers also, clearly identifying the address of the land in question, and asking the owner to make themselves known within 28 days. Append to that, notification of the clear intention to fell the tree after the passing of 28 days should no owner come forward in that time. That way, your client has a bullet proof defence, that is well established and recognised, should anyone ever come forward in the future. As for liability for the tree in the meantime, well that's a can of worms...... Firstly, the LA. The important point that seems to have been missed (at least from how I've read the thread) is that of Duty. The LA, as the Local Authority (the clue is in the name) have a Duty under numerous statutes. Highways Act being one, as has been mentioned, in so far as their Duty to provide and maintain safe and un obstructed passage to users of the public highway - with the Authority granted powers under the Act that they "may" enter third party property in order to discharge that Duty. So the emphasis shouldn't really be on the usage of "may", but on the actions of upholding their Duty under the Act. If they choose not to exercise the granted Authority to enter third party land in order to safeguard the Highway from a known hazard , then they would categorically be in breach of their Duty under the Act. Moreso, if it was known to them that there was no known owner of the land. But, let's not forget that that Duty only extends to the Highway. It does not extend to anything off of the Highway. For example, if a branch reached over the Highway from one side of the road to the other, and the end of the branch then snapped out and landed on a private driveway, that would be outside of their Duty under the Act. As for Misc Prov, it's a similar standpoint, but just applied more widely - in so far that it grants the LA the powers to enter private land to attend to a known hazard to the wider populous. For example, to attend to a large dead tree in private land, located within striking distance of a public play area. Similar in some respects, is also the LA's powers under the Planning Act, and the Environmental Protection Act - again, in so far that they all grant the LA the Authority to enter 3rd party land in order to abate and rectify certain nuisances - as defined within the relevant Act. The issue is though, is that most LA's will hedge their bets when it comes to land of unknown ownership. Primarily, because all of the relevant Acts also grant the LA the ability to recoup the costs from the land owner. But if no land owner, then no means of recouping the costs. And so it becomes a gamble, based on the likelihood of anyone ever taking a successful action against the LA for not rectifying the problem, versus the time/effort/expenditure of solving the problem with no means of recourse. There could be a route for action though in Common Law under a Negligence claim, especially given that the LA have been cutting the grass, assumingly under the tree in question also - so therefore in theory could be reasonably expected to be aware of the location and any defects/hazards arising from the land that they are maintaining. Possibly also under Occupiers Liability, in so far that by conducting the relevant maintenance of the land, there are by default assuming the role of the Occupier. Given that Occupiers Liability places the Duty on the Occupier, and not the land owner, then it's possible. As for any claim of ownership by the LA, Adverse Possession (squatters rights) is not an enforceable action - ie, you can't make someone claim the land if they've been utilising sole enjoyment. It only works one way unfortunately. If your client's not looking to claim for the damage though, I would just advise to go for the big bold note, and then crack on and fell it. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Blimey, how things've changed! It used to be the case that they'd take them down and replace for free, but would charge if you ever damaged them. I think the principle was that it wasn't the phone users fault or the tree owners fault that BT decided to route their cables through or under a tree, so therefore not liable for any costs if they needed to be taken down to work on the tree. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk