daltontrees

Good explanation!

The white vertical streaks are almost certainly resin from burst resin blisters, and my money is on one of the Abies (Fir), most likely grandis.

Sorry, I thought you said 10% reduction. A 10% thin would make just about no difference whatsoever. Save your ammo for a 10% reduction away from the building. The extent of amenity provided on that side that is visible to the public would be minimal, but cutting back from the building would improve daylighting to rooms and would be relatively slow to grow back. Beneficial rooting on that side will be limited by the building foundations and I am pretty sure a chestnut could take quite a lot of planar reduction without either adverse effect or loss of public amenity. Plus exploit the under-canopy area for summer shade and a fabulous dining area?

A bit of research on 'economic loss' in caselaw and possibly even directly in Mynors, I think will show this is a non-starter. TPOs are after all an imposition on a landowner (if he sees them that way) and if they were to be the trigger for an award of compensation for economic loss, we'd sure know about it.

I suggest postcrete instead of concrete, bulked out with rubble. The important bit is width of the hole in the direction of the wall. Last one I did I got the post in place and wedged a 450 slab in front of it then filled around with dry postcrete then hydrated.

It doesn't matter which came first. The tree was TPOd and unless the reasons that made it suitable for TPO at that time have changed, an appeal shouldn't interforer with the Council's decision to retain it despite the effect it might be having on the current occupier's business. That's neither pro nor anti tree, that's just the way the law and therefore the system is. If the occupier disagrees, an application can be made, and then an appeal. No application fees but unless supported by some substantive argument (which won't come free) this route will cost the occupier. I wouldn't worry about the public purse, it's a level playing field. I agree a 10% reduction (by volume a la 3998) will be put back on by the tree in no time.

I've used SLRs for years, the great advantage was that the picture would be what you saw through the viewfinder, particularly as the metering was throguh the lens. The size of SLRs means large siameter lenses which gather a lot of light meaning pictures in poor light conditions. Much has changed when cameras went digital, light levels are not so important as the digital sensor can be made to work in low light conditions. Increasingly even SLRs have real-time screens on teh back so that many people now don't even look through a viewfinder, they look a tthe screen to see what they're going to get. Lens interchangeability is still an advantage with SLRs, because zooms witha wide range are a significant compromise compared to several lenses covering the same range of focal lengths. I currently use a Nikon EOS 3100 and Nikon D100, and I also have a film Nikon F2. I use a fisheye lens with the D100 for stereographic images for high hedges cases, but rarely change lenses thereafter. It is more important to have a wide angle lens than a telehoto, because you can zoom in later digitally but can't re-create a wider view once you've left the scene. The modern SLRs have anti-vibration gadgetry, which works noticeably well, but I would say that one of the best things about SLRs is that they are heavy and therefore don't shake easily. Lightweight cameras are great for portability but you're more likely to get blurred pictures. And I ile that if one bit of an SLR breaks, it can be replaced. Not so with other cameras. My D100 lens is playing up, so I can keep the body and am shopping around for a second-hand replacement lens. All my filters and lens hoods will fit the replacement lens. I like that, indeed it drives me nuts when good kit has to eb chucked out because one little bit of plastic snaps off. A word of warnig abut Nikon. As someone else said, they are trading off their name - their more recent lenses are plastic and don't last. The D3100 was barely a year old when the aotofocus started to stick. The D100 lens no longer works on manual focus, which drives me crazy since I can't be bothered with autofocus (try taking a picture of a leaf and it focuses on the sky behind). I am on eBay a fair bit trying to get e new lens, and the 18-55mms that come with the current Nikons are a dime a dozen, all being ditched by their owners I suspect because they are starting to show signs of failing autofocus. You can get a modern 18-55 for £30, but one that is 10 years old, back when Nikon still meant quality and lenses were still made of metal, costs you £200 second-hand. To be honest, for work I would like a bridge camera, the zoom ranges are incredible and they are pretty compact without being too flimsy. But I will possibly be the last person still using a SLR because for versatility, creativity, complete control and almost endless expansion possibilities they can't yet be beat. But can I recommend a current SLR for £300 for someone whose going to explore photography with it? I don't think I can. My wife got her Nikon as her model of the 3100 was being discontinued, and it was discounted and was a bargain, but I would be wary unless I had read reports from a non-partisan magazine. There used to be dozens of mainstream SLR makers, now it's just Nikon and Canon, in an ever-diminishing market. They are cutting corners. Only their pro and semi-pro stuff seems to be any use, as it is made for people who aren't tryin g to choose between SLR and other formats. Poeple for whom control is more important than convenience. Quality of pictures for point-and-shoot punters is hardly the issue any more. An iPhone can compete with an SLR now. So in my view it depends what kind of person you are buying for. I think £300 will just about get a reliable SLR.

I've been using nothing but Arboroil on most of my saws for the last 4 years. Not the slightest problem with it. It dilutes at 5 to 1 with water, so I can carry a couple of litres into the woods and as long as I find a stream I can make up 12 litres. I don't use it on my 200Ts though, teh oiler pipe and the hole on the bar are too small and it just doesn't seem to work. I run them on normal bar oil and since they don't get used for long periods a little oil lasts a long time. Arboroil has probably saved me £00s over the years. Customers react well to knowing that I use it.

Have a look at Ganoderma applanatum.

And that was one of my uncharacteristically short ones!

I seem to remember being told to be careful to distinguish between colonisation and infection. Colonisation is the establishment of the pathogen on the tree, perhaps a spore in a wound. Infection is when the germinated spore enters into the cells of the host tree. So I think it refers to how the fungus gets in. The primary ones are sapwood intact, sapwood exposed, active pathogenisis and heartwood. If I'm right. it's not the same as decay strategies which relate to the woody component attacked (lignin, cellulose, hemi-cellulose) and come usually under the headings of white, brown and simultaneous rots. These are infection rather than colonisation. So again if I'm right the main ways for a fungus to get in is through a wound, through a decayed taproot or deep wound into heartwood, by being there dormant since the tree's infancy or by forcing its way in through the roots.

Just to fine-tune Paul Melarange's good advice, yes D.c. will not kill living wood but it can and does cause deadwood to break off a tree rather than disintegrate while still attached to the tree. There would be times when its presence might justify pre-emptive removal of large pieces over high target areas.

The short answer for me is no. The longer answer is that, as I mentioned in reply to Paul Barton's point, that if an aadditional set of criteria are used by an individual arb, they must be clearly stated and consistently applied. But I think there is no scope for changing the fundamental criteria or 'scopes' of the categories. Fine-tune and explain, yes, change and explain, no. The difficulty I was having with the other poster on here (insofar as onlookers might have wanted to adopt his approach is that (as I would have it) I am doing what the Standard says to do but he was doing what he remembered someone telling him it says. By the time an onlooker tries to defend his or her interpretation of the Standard it would be 'I am doing what someone from the internet I don't really know and whose work I havent seen said he was told once, by someone who may or may not have been involved in writing the Standard, what it should have meant'. There is scope for personal styles, but that is taking it too far. I see the BS as written too vaguely to be used on its own as a specification in the contractual sense, but I think it is entirely right to specify that it is complied with or that bits of it are used exactly. That might seem contradictory, but there is an important difference. Specifications are used as the basis of contracts, anmd contracts need to be clear and enforceable or they wll give rise to unresolvable disputes between the parties. The language used in BSs (and I am thinking of course of 5837 in particular) is not set up with two or more contracting parties in mind. You can't say 'in return for a fee of £X, party A (the arb) will do all the tree bits in BS5837 and then partyy B will pay him'. There are parts of the Standard that say users of it 'should' do such-and-such or 'may'. That's no use in a contract. Using it a s a spec would require firming up which bits are to to be done and whether the shoulds and mays are to be musts. I hope that makes sense.

I have two awkward 200s and an awkward 230, was wondering if it was worth sending them to Spud. Like treewswinger, the experience oif local dealers is pretty dismal and expensive. May package them up for you Spud, if that's OK?

Ah but a marriage license is the most powerful trump card there is. I am reminded of a quote I heard once something like, arguing with a woman is like trying to read an airmail edition of The Times in a strong wind.

OK, we disagree. I haven't been told how to interpret it, I am just using the BS by the ordinary rules of the english language, with a bit of Gaelic thrown in now and again. The part quoted by Paul Barton is relevant. 'transparent, understandable and systematic way'. If your reports say that you are differentiating between species in terms of quality or value, the reader will know that and can make allowances for your system.

I agree it can be puzzling. The important bit for me is that it says 'the context of proposed development', not 'the context of a proposed development' or 'the context of the proposed development'. The context is tehrefore that there is development proposed, and that trees may need to be removed, protected or avoided. My view is that it allows the class of development to be contemplated, but not the layout. So, trees in a residential development site can be assessed for quality in the context of them either enhancing or detracting from residential amenity. Apart from close up, the shape and size of a tree and how it affects buildings is largely the same whatever the species. Yes it's valid for a designer to differentiate between species at the detailed design stage, but it's not for an arb to pre-empt that by creating his or her own arbitrary sub-sub categories for some species.

I was just trying to help you and anyone else that has come up against the apparent need to sub-sub-categorise trees. I'm using the BS correctly because among other things I don't pick up a pen until I have understood, digested, mulled over and dry-run things. You do it your way. It's easy to find problems, solutions are a little more elusive. i have been through this problem witha fine-tooth comb and it is apparent that there can only be one solution.

Thanks for clarification, Gary, yes it just means 'Dear Lord!'

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.