daltontrees

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.

Noted, thanks. I dunno how I'm going to remember this though, because in Scotland even after the new 2010 Regulations they are called 'exemptions'. Nothing wrong with a bit of pedantry, just means you like to be right.

I'd go with all of that. There's 2 aspects to this. The first is doing what you need to do under the Regulations. Make sure the trees are properly identified, with a sketch plan if need be. The notification HAS to be in writing. And at least 5 days before commencement of works. Make sure you state the obvious that the trees are dead and that you plan to remove them. The second is being able to prove afterwards that the trees are dead. You don't need to prove it now, but you should have records to protect yourself later in case someone suggests that you were abusing the exemption. Dated photographs, witnesses, independent report, whatever you think is unambiguous proof.

Always worth looking at the feedback, the seller of this chipper has 9 feedbacks, none as a seller, 9 as buyer from a suplier that sells lightbulbs, fancy goods and cleaning products. It would be so easy to set up a supposedly reasonable looking ebay account by buying cheap stuff for a while at £1 a go to get a great feedback score.

A centimetre? Less han a pencil's width? Nothing'll see that. Except loosening soil with a fork at right angles to the radial spread, and just looking for them with your eyes. It depends on what you are trying to achieve, GPR is apparently good but it's not magic. It's definitely part of the gamut of recognised techniques, I remember being quizzed about it during my AA Tech practical exams.

That's where I got to then gave up. There is a P type on pines that supposedly can be found higher up.

Nope!

I pondered that for at least 5 minuites, but Phellinus is to geotropic this random set of growths can't possibly be it. Ditto F. pinicola, and it's perennial, not like this withered or mis-shapen stuff. Gonnae just tell us please?

I am convinced it works, it's just not cheap or we'd all be doing it.

Torture! I give up.

I suppose this is what the thread is about, but isn't it just lovely when you are browsing, you spot something then looking for the price you see that they're virtually giving it away?

On a recent family holiday in the borders, got this in a bookshop in Moffat for £6. Published in 1923, lead author Dalliore of Kew, an absolute welth of information about just about every conifer, and certainly evey one that was known in the world back then. Includes info I heven't seen anywhere else. When it says 'handbook' you'd need hands like shovels to carry this hefty tome around.

The AA was to make a draft available on its website, but I can't see it. As far as I can tell the AA hasn't even publicised the consultation. My initial reaction is that it is a dense and unapproachable Standard that has every chance of being unusable by the average arb, or even the extraordinary one. i.e it is a hard read but actually if you persevere it becomes clear (?) that it doesn't do (so far) what it set out to do which is to improve bat protection by making non-specialist surveys easier and therefore more likely to happen.

Anybody bothering with this? It's almost impossible to get an overview on the drafting website. I see a pdf has been made available by BSI for £20. Personally I stop short of paying for the dubious privelege of trying to improve the drafting.

ME too, but the rule is going to prohibit blocking up where there is potential bat roosts, not confirmed ones. If they are confirmed, you need a license to fell. If you fell a potential roost and it turns out to be occupied (probably not necessary or desirable to check anyway) then it is the bats' decision to leave the roost and not to return. A line has to be drawn somewhere, I am neither of or agiasnt the rules, I'm just speculating that that is where the line is. It's all going to get covered in the new British Standard anyway. Not that anyone will pay any attention to it.

A couple of years ago I noticed some guys in Glasgow with a hired chipper, they had had to demolish a timber garage to get at some trees in a garden. I watched with horror as one of them fed a window frame, nails and glass and all, in to the chipper. He was chipping into a skip on a busy public road. Un-f-believable!

Since 2007 it is an offence (in Scotland anyway)... to obstruct access to a breeding site or resting place of such an animal, or otherwise to deny the animal use of the breeding site or resting place. There are exceptions under license.

That sounds ideal, well done! I hope your ability to work around potential bat roosts wins you lots more work.