daltontrees

Ok, I shall dingy the TRAQ/QTRA thing for now, having just signed up for CAS based on PTI. I'll see what the requirements for valuation accreditaiton are, but I suppose there will be some requirement for an assessed CTLA course, even though I could (and unfortunately sometimes involuntarily do) do valuations in my sleep.

Aye, best 'split' longitudinally with a chainsaw. Or binned. Been there, spent mos tof the time hammering wedges back out of the rings, in to the hilt but ring showing no sign of giving up.

I suppose that brings me neatly back to my earlier reference to teh definition in the Standard "3.3 arboriculturist -person who has, through relevant education, training and experience, gained expertise in the field of trees in relation to construction." Expert is a strong word, but if it equates to 'expertise' I think that's a reasonable test of whether someone should be undertaking 5837 surveys unassisted. The word 'and' I think is important, if it meant to say 'or' or 'and/or' it would have done so.

Booked.

Just got a copy on eBay for £3.90, yeehah! Just going back online to look for a cheap copy of 'Book shelves and their reinforcement'...

I'd say Birch too, those bands (which I think nare called lenticel bands) are quite characteristic of some species including birch but I wouldn't asssociate them with Poplar. Colour is'nt a ideal clue, but again I'd go with Birch. If' as David says, therre's no Cherry currently or recently nearby. Because they do look cherry-like.

Sad but true!

Oh my Lord, I clean forgot. Will try and remember to book tomorrow.

I'm sure it'll make us all better people. Me, I wasn't doing anything else more interesting today...

Shereen Nanjiani, minor celebriy scottish newsreader and more famously the origin of scottish rhyming slang for a person of questionable judgement? Also part of female anatomy, as in "She gied her a boot in the Shereen, an' legged it".

Nah not really, it's a bit distant from the current consultation subject. But onthe otehr hand if TDAG wants to know if the planning system is working and if not why not, the whole issue of inadequate resourcing of LA tree remits is the herd of elephants in the room.

Lucky you, I usually get a blank stare, or an embarrased silence a the end of the phone as the planner vaguely begins to remember that they were/are meant by law periodically to review their TPOs.

I don't misunderstand you, Tom, I'm just trying to address generalisations for the benefit of the OP. The pressure to bend the truth is ALWAYS there, and there's some right Shereens out there who don't resist it and are even all too fast to suggest to a client how it can be bent. Not you obviously... There's another analogy witht he legal profession that might be applicable here, and that is the role of the expert witness in court proceedings. Although appointed by one of the parties the expert becomes answerable to the court and any partisan leanings will be straightened up sharpish by the judge. And I think I have mentioned before on Arbtalk that I make my tricky decisions under a momentary imaginary cross-examination. I tell you what I really do agree with you on. Anyone using their role as a 5837 categoriser to protect trees contrary to the plain facts is all wrong. Straight down the middle is where to aim. Let the system take it from there (even if it then gets lost in the long long grass).

Get your consultation response in, Gaz. Don't educate, put up barriers. That's the only way that really works.

That's unnecessarily harsh, Tom, I am sure Gary knows the score and was just having a bit of a joke at the expense of a system that doesn't really work most of the time. If one is commissioned to do a 5837 survey, it should not be done in the client's best interests, it should be done objectively, ignoring the development proposals. Doing it objectively is indirectly the best way to serve your cleint because if the TO disagrees with a report because its conclusions are suspect, the cleint is back at square one. Every professional has the choice to develop and maintain a solid reputation for objective reporting, clients will come looking to use you if you have that because it gets them results. A professional can make his own decision about whether to prostitute himself and his reputation for a fee by bending or breaking the truth about trees. And when he does, every TO in the country, via the grapevine, comes to treat his reports with suspicion and might even pre-judge a planning application because of the choice of 'tart' arb consultant. Having done 20 years on and off in local government and industry, I could write a list, so could most DCOs. Back to the original posting here, I think the arb consultant starting on 5837 surveys needs to set out the stall very carefully early on, because changing it later is very hard. Not playing it dead straight is the easy way, but then it just gets harder and harder and harder. As Shakspeare said 'Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive".

Don't these things get publicised a little too late for the public to use them for what you are contemplating? I don't know how it works down south but up here the public will see a registered applicatin but won't see detailed reports until it's too late. Also I have seen Councls asking for 5837 reports as a condition of consent (which is a rubbish and pointless way to use 5837) at which point the public has no further direct influence.

Well thank goodness I haven't missed anything in 5837 to do with poulation densities etc. But still, that tree couldn't foreseeably cause serious harm unless a lunatic jumped into it from a hot air balloon in his underpants. We all get leant on to shift our opinion. But unfortunately anything with a 3 subcategory is according to the BS and the ATF and the NPF worthy of conservation and therefore retention and calling it B instead of A is a bold step. Calling it a C is asking for trouble from the LPA, and won't even help a client advance a development proposal. It would be easier to keep it out of the 3 sub-cat than to move it down through the retention suitability subcategories. According to the ATF definitions, that tree looks either ancient or veteran, or both. Is it providing the sort of scarce deadwood habitats that underlie the whole conservation approach in 5837? if so, that is unshakeable in the National Planning Framework. Calling it a Z5 or a U9 won't get a developer anywhere very far. My answer might be different for Wales or Scotland, but as Arbtalk is Anglocentric I won't elaborate.

Or hoefully you're right and then maybe TDAG will get government to do something about it. We all know already whats going on. endless cots means endless bleeding.

Looks 3 to me. A or B depending on ERC. I don't see how the situation should affect that. It's not like a Hawthorn is going to fall over and crush someone. On what basis would it be downgraded because of proximity to populations or existing development?

BS5837 says the output needs to be by an arboriculturist, as defined in the BS. Something like 'someone who through training, experience and qualifications is knowledgeable in the field of trees in relation to buildings'. The survey is easy-ish (although the risk surveys you have done will not be ideal experience), it is the classification that can be tricky until you have a good few trees and have got comfortable with deciding borderline and unusual situations. It shouldn't be a test of computer adeptness. Making the right judgements about trees and situations is of primary importance. Representing this information on plans is a consequence of this, but some think it's all about producing pretty plans. Obviously if the contract spec says you need to portray RPAs and CEZs on a CAD layer then you must tackle that aspect right away. That will take care of the prettiness. But the AIA can be a bit trickier, especially if something unusual crops up. Same goes for the AMS. I have never ever produced a standard report. Clients won't stand for the expense implications of needless standard clauses. Nor will Councils stand for blatant blagging. it's a fine line to keep everyone happy sometimes. If it was me (and it was, once) I'd assist on the first one. Unless and until you can tick the box of the 'arboriculturist' definition in the BS. Most COuncils don't seem to question the report writer's credentials but a few do. It would be horrible of the survey etc. was just a shelf-filling, box-ticking expense-inducing formality required to support a planning application. It's much more interesting when it's not, when you need to be on your toes because it needs to be absolutely right, with your name, reputation and PI cover behind it. I really don't prescribe to the 'have a go' approach if it involves copying found reports. I'd say have a go but be professional enough to call for help if it gets too 'heavy', or with the bits you know you're not up to yet. And be wary, I have seen some reports by fairly eminent arbs on the internet that on closer inspection are worthless, fee-farming, rubbish that I would be embarrased to put my name to. But the whole industry, like every other industry, operates in the zone between getting away with it and doing it right. I'd say start as you mean to go on.

Cpuld someone please explain what 'Ra' is?

Open doc in Word. Select File/Export, should be a pdf version option.

I hope he knows!

Ha...

It's a fantastic book to browse, but it is not very structured. If there was just one book that covers trees and their environment in a structured way but isn't too dense and intimidating, and doesn't cost too much, I'd say Thomas's Trees:Their Natural History. You can (and excuse the pun) branch out after that into specialisms.