daltontrees

A Dhia's a Ghraidh! The density and complexity of your question invites almost endless responses. Let me ponder ...

I take the point but would maintain that the definitions are objective but are prone to subjective interpretation. I'd go as far as to say that if they are subjective then 5837 is not a 'Standard'.

The only reason I'm keeping going is that I have been hoping to pass on several decades of battle-hardened knowledge and experience to fellow arbs. It's a pity that you are so adamant that I am wrong when I am pretty sure that I am interpreting the BS correctly. Simple scenario, a school with two students, in one corner is a charismatic, articulate, energetic student, in the other an intelligent but uncharismatic, uncommunicative impractical student. They are both sitting the same degree exams, let's say arboriculture. An employer is looking to take on a graduate. Through hard work and basic intelligence, they both pass the exams and get Firsts in their degrees. Which one gets the job? The first, of course, not only did he pass the criteria to be an Arb, but he is a valuable commodity to an employer. Grading them as both Firsts would help nobody. The employer would have no information to say which graduate is worth employing and which is not. But an interview would put it beyond any doubt. I'm going to be perfectly frank. A high category does not mean retention. It's just a ranking. Retention comes from a combination of the developer's desire to retain and the Council's insistence. The categorisation is not a pass or fail. No amount of sub-ranking or shifting the threshold will make any difference. My report on your trees would say, they're both 5837 As, but one is more valuable than the other. The very thought that a designer would not look beyond the basic categorisation or that the arb would not supplement his categorisation with additional advice about relative worth is too weird for me to envisage. Come to think of it, the very thought that a design would be based purely on categories, well it just doesn't happen. 5837 is just a tool, and section 4 is so coarse that its limitations are so widely recognised that it is never ever ever the last word on retention. its hardly even the first word. Take my suggestions or leave them, but if anyone wishes to engage in professional practice by manipulating British Standards with the unnecessary aim of influencing or pre-determining retentions it's probably a matter of time before they develop an unenviable reputation. Being objective then being helpful with additional advice is good, manipulating the BS doesn't actually help anyone. I don't know who you are so don't take this personally. It's a public forum and my comments are there for a wider audience. My final comment is on 'unremarkable'. If you work throught from A (particularly good examples of their species) to B (downgraded As because of condition or lacking the special quality of As) to Cs (downgraded Bs because 'unremarkable' or a near absence of special qualities), to me there can only be one interpretation of 'unremarkable' and that is that it relates to condition or merit within a species. No matter how I read it, I cannot force it to mean that a step from A to B or to C is permitted on the basis of the relative worth of species. It is not for any of us to say whther this is appropriate or not, that's just the way it is. But I do sense that it is right not to differentiate on species. From a distance the tree-ness of a tree is largely independent of species, genus or even Family or Order. Maybe try running your two trees through the categorisation again and see what you think.

...and that's probaly a good thing, this latest policy is sound-bitey and will hit a lot of buffers as it tries to thrust aside decades of proof that it's not such a great idea. There's always been a sequential preference for brownfield land and many Councils already have that written into their Development Plans, which creates a presumption in favour of consent. But the devil's always in the detail, there should never be such a thing as an unconditional automatic consent and as such hopefully there will still be a place for localism and appropriate conditions. Every government that comes along thinks it has found a genius solution to an eternal problem, a solution no-one else saw. They're rarely magic wands, history is littered with their tarnished wreckage.

Sorry, again I disagree. The bar is set by BS5837. It is possible for a report to create additional distinctions between good and exceptional, but I think it is incorrect to do this by manipulating the definitions in 5837. One could for example add a category A+ or even A++, but it would still be A. You're kind of promoting the argument that would allow say drivers to be marked numerically in their driving test, and the top 25% being allowed to pass, regardless of whether they are safe to drive. If it is done accordign to 5837, the designer and the LA can assess it relative to other sites that have been done on the same basis. Otherwise no one has any objective information to make a decision on. That to me is realistic. Shifting the mean and deviation to create a normal distribution of some kind isn't.

I have always thought the necessary abatement exemption nuisance existed. I don't think iut's any different up here as the law has developed on a similar basis.

Nah, they just haven't realied I'm right yet:biggrin: But seriously, the Council could TPO the tree even if it is not in the development area, and since the TPO covers the tree wherever its parts extend, the development site would be affected. This to my mind is one of teh reasons 5837 requires the recording of off-site trees.

Well that's quite the point. Words without definitions are prone to many interpretations. I am adamant that size is largely irrelevant to the categorisation. It is important for landscape value, amenity value, arboricultural value etc. and presumably that is a big part of the choice of which tree the designer chooses to retain. But it's not the surveyor's choice. He/she reports category and size, among other things. The designer will take all these things into account, but would never just choose what to retain by category. I didn't follow your logic at the end there ("It may in part fit B, but it doesn't fit any of the sub-categories. If its not A it can't be B1"). I think the tree is possibly B1 and C3. B1 is the highest, so it's B1.

Sorry, I don't really get this. I was speculating that the surveyor was trying from the outset to make the case for develoing within the zone of influnece of the tree and thus wants to state that it is hardly worthy of protection. It's for the designer (and the Council) to decide which are retained, not the surveyor. In theory and occasionally in practice the design is not known to the surveyor. Without teh context of a design it is impossible to say at the time of survey what should be retained, or even what the threshold for retention should be. It is entirely possible for every tree on a site to be category A. The designer can still make an informed choice, he presumably then can decide which of the trees to keep. Or all of them. Or none of them. And the Council can then decide to TPO them all, or let them all go or put conditions in to protect certain ones.

Good pics. I'd say it's an apple, but there are thousands of cultivars. Maybe hupehensis or halliana? Basically I don't know.

Tetradium danielli and Euodia huphensis are synonyms. I had a look at this but Collins says the leaflets are cupped and glossy. Euodia always has a leaflet at te end of the compound leaf, wheras Sapindus usually doesn't. Based on this one picture, it looked like there was no terminal leaflet.

Tricky! Soapberry? Not going to suggest which one yet.

I'd have to disagree on that based on the evidence we have. Eucalyptus are realtively unusual in this part of the country. it has a 20+ according to the surveyor. Size is unimportant to subcategory. You say "It's not B1 because of downgrading due to defects" but even the surveyor says it is 'good' and has 20+ left. It therefore has to be a B1. The surveyor seems to have a tail that is wagging a dog. And in the end the LPA will hopefully come out, look at it and decide whether the surveyor is at it or not. Based on the limited description we have, I'd say the report's credibility would be in doubt from that point onwards.

Yes, I just don't think I explained this very well. For every tree a surveyor is not just faced with a choice of A, B, C or U, but with a preliminary choice of 1, 2 or 3. So a free-standing veteran that is ghastly looking and not providing much amenity could be considered a low grade 1, not a 2 at all, and a high grade 3. I have always gone on the basis that if I have 2 choices, say C1 (low arboricuktural value) and A3 (high conservation value) then I must choose A3. In the case of the OP's tree, the surveyor has chosen 3 (conservation) and then given it a low subcategory (C3) because Eucalyptus is not native. A low subcategory might well be right for conservation value. However, if it is a perfectly good arboricultural tree in a garden, it should also have a A1 or B1 value. So what I meant was A always trumps B always trumps C (stating the obvious). Given the choice, the tree should have been reported as A1 or B1, adn that even if it was in relally poor condition because of root damage it shoudl have been reported as C1 rather than C3.

All that stuff about risk from SBD (whatever that is) isn't much use in asssessing the risk to a climber. Putting full body weight far out on an already overextended limb of a susceptible species during the conditions known to co-incide with SBD cases is something that personally I would avoid. Although 'SBD' mechanisms are not known, it empirically is a loss of strength relative to dead load. Drying might be the cause of loss of strength, but in that simple equation adding a load amounts to the same thing - failure. It's never happened to me, but when I have to go literally out on a limb I spend a minute extra just making sure I get my redirects right and that I am triangulated so that when in work position I can tighten everything up and reduce my load on the branch to the very minimum.

The C3 categorisation is a nonsense, the surveyor is busted and his/her retrospective justification is equally nonsense. If the tree really is in good condition and with reasonable management will continue in existence for several decades, tehre is no reason for it being anything other than A or B. But that's not teh real issue. Why on earth has 3 been chosen? If it's in a garden it shoud probably be a 1 (Arboricultural value). So I'd say A1 or B1. You could hardly get further away from that than C3. And you'd only get there if you were trying to justify unfettered damage and to create development value. Eve by teh survey desctiption it has to be at least B. Even if it's in a Conservation Area, a 1 value would trump a 3 value. Maybe write to the Council and make sure the planners know (if they don't already) that this categorisation is farcical.

Gary, you are a masochist. I have made a few comments about your plan on UKTC. Wish I could help. If you want to extend it to Scotland I might. I think the legislation requiring review of TPOs is almost identical up here, but possibly had effect at a different time from yours.

That only gets you existing information, not opinion. And definitely nothing helpful, as Council's hate them. Even when there's nothing to hide, it is really tiresome responding to them. I used to work for a couple of Councils and used to have to spend 1/2 a day dealing with some nonsense or other from some [forum-rules-forbidden-noun] with nothing better to do than send in smartass requests when a phone call would have got them a more helpful and quicker reply.

TPOs are public sequestration of trees. The amenity provided by TPOd trees is in effect owned by the public.

Spooky, you been following this by telepathy? http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/general-chat/89510-tpos-they-important.html

And the shade provided by trees over there is valued.

Definitely! If TPos didn't exist, we'd have to invent them. They have saved many a tree from whimsical short term decisions, allowing the tres to provide their benefits for decades more, for the public subsequent owners of properties. What weather girls thread? Maybe that's what i need to cheer me up today. I like a good occluded front on a sunday morning.

Did I say that? Trees are important to weelbeing inways that most peopke won't accept until it's too late. If we can't even keep a few of the best using TPos, there really is no hope.

But did you vote on Q1? The poll so far is 100% for yes or yes, but.

Trees produce oxygen. No trees, no animal life on earth.