daltontrees

This seems to be going round in circles. You and others seem to be saying that 5837 and the classifications are subjective, yet there is some umbrage being taken that TOs are disageeing with said subjective judgements. If you and others are right that it is subjective, then disagreement is inevitable. By definition. But 5837 isn't subjective, it's meant to be objective but is susceptible to subjectivity. That's not the same thing as it being subjective. It is meant to give sufficiently defined parameters for classifications so that individual assessors even with their personal biases and leanings will reach about the same conclusions, and if they don't their conclusions will be of doubtful objective value. And anyone who tries to bend 5837 to support an existing development proposal may and probably will get busted eventually. 5837 is there to form a basis for protecting trees against construction etc. if that's what is desired. Occasionally it is used by designers and clients who recognise the benefits of trees within developments, even when no planning constraints arise. But mostly it is used as a tool by LPAs to save the benefits of trees from the pressures, greed and ignorance of designers and developers. In that circumstance, is anyone really surprised that opinions differ on the value of each tree? That's what planning appeals are there to resolve. Gradings or categorisations aren't absolute, they're relative. They can't be used as a yes/no. When you say "The whole point of the AIA is to inform the designer which trees to protect and which can be felled" all I can say is that's not the point of AIAs at all. It is to be able to demonstrate, generally after selection of retention has been done, how the trees would affect development and how development would affect the trees. Basically an AIA without a specific development proposal is largely futile, but 5837 provides for an assessment of relative retention desirablity regardless of any specific development proposal. "But surely our role as arb consultants is to make informed decisions easier for non arbs."? I guess your TO is not a non arb, and in this case is, in effect, the decision maker.

Having not seen the tree or the context, I don't know how any of us can say the TO is right or wrong on this 'lovely tree'.

Long before the AIA and the TCP are contemplated, the grading is undertaken. The retention desirability of the trees is ranked. Basically saying the As are more desirable than the Bs which are more desirable than the Cs. On that basis, the TO may just be moving a few trees up to a higher rank. That's his/her prerogative. If he/she is effectively shifting all or most of your grading up a level, well again that's his/her prerogative. In most senses this makes less difference than moving a few trees up, because it doesn't differentiate between trees. None of this changes the pass-mark issue. I.e. there is no pass mark. It's the Council's call. And then your client's call to appeal against a refusal or whaat it considers unreasonable tree protection or retention conditions. I don't recall the word 'unremarkable' in 5837. That would be a highly subjective definition. Doesn't it talk instead about value and quality, life expectancy and freedom from defects? And doesn't the Planning Act talk instead about amenity and expediency? The Council has the public's interests (including the eventual occupiers of a development) in mind whilst the developer has the developer's interests in mind, and the latter only retains trees if they will increase profits. It is a miracle that the two ever come vaguely into the same categories of retention desirability. If you grade an unremarkable (all be it healthy) leyland cypress as anything less than B1 then how will the Council understand that an objective view is being taken on the ranking on which it can base its decision?

Maybe that's going a bit too far, 5837 doesn't have pass-mark and it's not for the arb to pre-empt constraints, it's the LPA's role to decide whether to hold out for retention, and for the applicant to appeal if it disagrees with the outcome. What can you do? Arguing the toss with the TO will either result in a bit of come and go on some of the trees or the shutters will get pulled down right away. We don't know if the trees are a constraingt and/or whether another layout or tree protection measures could result in an equally viable development. There's a lot we don't know. Committee could reject the TO's recommendations for example. Is there a design that you are working around? That never looks good.

Costs could be awarded against appellant if the appeal is fndamentally unreasonable. I expect you know that, but the OP might want to proceed cautiously. Breaking out the concrete and laying membrane plus gravel would be worth considering. Would save that root having to reach over 5 metres before it finds air water and nutrients.

Aesculus indica

This thread is a bit like asking an undertaker for a cure.

Bad news then for Beech, Sycamore, Lawson's, Leylandii, Plane etc. etc.

Or not, but the journey can be just as fun.

Nicely put.

I personally don't think an appeal would get very far.

I just re-read all 11 pages of it. Hard work before breakfast.

The Act says that "If the authority consider ... that the complainant has not taken all reasonable steps to resolve the matters complained of without proceeding by way of such a complaint to the authority ... the authority may decide that the complaint should not be proceeded with." High Hedge cases are rarely nice, but I had one last week where the parties are on first name terms and each have good reason to support their case. An arbiter was therefore needed. These situations are more likely when the guidance (HHLL or equivalent) can't be applied to non-standard layouts, so there is no way of the parties agreeing on what the height outcome would be if a HH notice was applied for. One could argue tha that is what has happened in Gary's case.

The document have been removed from the appeal website, as the case is more thna 6 months old. I have sent a copy directly to you by email.

maybe Pholiota aurivella?

HHLL cannot be used for non-contiguous hedges. It is not only impossible to erfor m the calculation, the whole basis for the method relies on the hedge an garden situation being approximately adjacent because thae's how the model was tested by BRE. You need to fall back on BS8206-2 for light calculations. BRE's 'Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight' gives tools that can be used to apply BS8206-2 to high hedges, with one important exception - skylight to gardens. It covers the other aspects of sunlight to gardens, daylight to buildings and sunlight to buildings. I've developed a method for skylight to gardens which uses the equivalent of a Waldram diagram for sampling points int eh garden, but there is no actual agreed threshold of acceptable garden skylight levels. Can send you a link to a successful scottish appeal that shows it. Meantime onus is on the potential HH applicant to demonstrate adverse effect on reasonable enjoyment. If it's a window argument, they have objective ways of doing it but if it's a garden argument they haven't. Ask what action hedge height they propose and how they arrived at the figure.

Sorry to contradict again, but doesn't that conflict with what you quoted before from the Act i.e. the damage has to be wilful? By the way, the concept of strict liability and the removal of the need to prove mens rea (criminal mind, or more literally translated as the mind of the thing i.e. intent) is much better developed in scots law than in english law.

The one on the south side of Glasgow turned out to be something quite different. The leaves were really quite similar, the fruits I saw last year were about the same, but the bark was very different to the OP's. Back to square one...

I agee that the COG is important but the entire weight of the pice acts through the half hitch attachment point. Anything elevated has 'Potential Energy'. he energy is released when it falls. The energy is equal to mass x distance fallen. See attached modification of original diagram. The distance fallen is A to B plus A to C. A to C is really equal to A to B. So the distance is twice A to B. The energy released is mass x distance, but in this example we are assuming mass is the same whatever the ehights. So basically the amount of energy released by the fall is proportional to distance A to B. The groundie and the capstan and the tree have to absorb it as frictional heat, vibration, muscular effort and occasionally the groundie being moved some distance. The shock and how hard it will be to control how it is let run is proportional to the distance between the block and the half hitch. Te groundie can't do anything to slow it down until the rope goes taut. So the OP is right.

Surely conviction for 'wilful damage' must involve proof of intent? Otherwise the offence would be 'damage'.

I have started to use mixed plastic recycled wood for a project, slightly more expensive than wood but lasts forever. Usually in black, grey or brown. Every shape and size you can imagine, including pointed stakes. There's reinforced boards too. A cheap and quick and effective alternative to kerbing on founds would be boards and stakes, and you cna hand dig to find stake positions that miss any substantial roots then cut boards to suit. I am waiting to see just how big a span I can get between stakes without excessive bulge, the advice so far from Kedel Mixed Plastic Lumber - Kedel.co.uk is 450mm for 40 x 120 unreinforced boards holding loose earth. There always appears to be a gap in the rules. On the one hand you have to apply for anything that you know would damage a tree including its roots (and this means damage during construction AND root suffocation afterwards by inappriopriate surfacing). On the other hand if you crack on without permission, not intending to damge the tree but what you did does damage the tree, you could be prosecuted. The Council might have to show the damage was wilful. For me it would depend if it was my tree or a customer's. And how much of the RPA will be paved over. block paviours are possibly only about 5% permeable, maybe enough for gas exchange but not enough for water and pretty much eliminating future uptake of organic nitrates. I recall that cellweb did an edging that is designed to allow breathing. But if not it recommends that the cellweb be fixed with steel pinsd and if this is done right it should retain the patio a bit against spread, making the job required of the edging much less.

Unbelievable! Lost for words...

Unresearched guesses, Juglans regia, Prunus whocares and Ostrya carpinifolia

I don't doubt you have careful with your words, but that is not the same as them being fair and accurate. You seem to have moved the opinion of 'gross exaggeration' resulting in 'court misunderstanding' ... to ...'gross errors' and 'misled the court'. The former two are opinion, the latter two together seem to me to be accusation of intent by the witnesses. Om the other hand, I did not speculate, I asked a question, affording you the opportunity to retract and get back on track and talk about sometihng other than what everyone by now knows to be your partisan interest in QTRA. You have not retracted, and preversely instead you seem to think that I am having a 'dig'. For the record, if I even need to say it, I did not say you were been libellous. Is there a word for someone wrongly accusing somebody of wrongly accusing somebody of writing something defamatory? If there is, and if I gave a damn about it or about being defamed by you, I might do something about it, but on the balance of probabilities I don't give a damn. If you have something useful to say about trees that isn't a QTRA sales pitch, crack on. I can't stop you, whatever you say, nor is it my job to do so. But it's a free world and if you talk mince, I am just as free to opine that it is mince or that words are being minced. Take care, it's foggy out there...

I downloaded it today for free. But that's not, surely, the subject of this thread? A book is a tangible thing, pre-loved, with history and significance, occasionally with that old book smell and the excitement of peeling apart slightly wrinkled pages and re-discovering lost lore. And having, as happened to me recently, a pressed needle fall out of the Dallimore book that had been there for perhaps 50 years, somebody's long forgotten exciting discovery and souvenir. Or, just the appreciation of our predecessors' clear crisp (if a little flowery at times) written word. All that lovely stuff that has come from stepping out of the hustle and bustle of the commercially-driven myopia of the day in to a sedate chamber somewhere for a while to say it like it really is. A good book is a good book. A bargain is a bargain. And trees are the bees-knees. Put 'em all together and ... Gola!