daltontrees

Seriousness. Everything heard by High Court (or english Crown Court) is indictment. Magistrates/Sherrifs/Justices of Peace can hear cases on indictment, but more usually deal with lesser crimes by summary conviction following pleadings. I've never understood it properly, because I've never seen it explained well enough.

So am I.

That was the point I was making to Jon Heuch, the Regulations only apply to Summary Convictions, so there's no point looking there for proof that fines can be unlimited. The lack of upper limit for fines comes from the Act, and can only arise from Indictment. Regardless what the Regulations say, the Act still limits penalties for Summary Conviction. It's a lot simpler than everyone seems to think.

The Act still limits the fine on summary conviction. It's fines on indictment that are unlimited. The fines on summary convition are further subdivided into those that cause or are likely to cause destruction of the tree and those lesser offences such as topping or lopping. Whoever distils it into English will have to distil it into Scots too, because we have different legislation, we have sherrifs instead of magistrates, procurators fiscal instead of crown prosecutors etc. etc.

I was involved in one a couple of months ago, the police caught him at it, it went to sherrif court, reparation had to be paid (which is what I did a report for) and he got 150 hours community service and apparently misssed getting a custodial sentence by a bohair.

I thnk you can get a waterproof Otterbox for it, might get over the temperature an delicacy problem too.

You'll regret it!

Junos are OK but a bit false accurate. Never used SC, not much use to me as it is not waterproof, won't work in the cold and is too delicate (I drop my Geo at least twice a day). Only 5 metres accuracy or precision, OK for finding out roughly where you are but unless you are snapping to trees on a topo plan the plotting won't be accurate enough to create a tree plan overlay for architects and the like. Cheap though... I don't think it works with Pocket GIS, which is what I use. Would need a TerraSync license and software. Maybe worth asking Pear if they could set you up?

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.