-
Posts
4,889 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Classifieds
Tip Site Directory
Blogs
Articles
News
Arborist Reviews
Arbtalk Knot Guide
Gallery
Store
Freelancers directory
Everything posted by daltontrees
-
I was pruning a cherry yesterday and I came across this. A branch about the thickness of your thumb, but as it got closer to the stem it narrowed to about the thickness of a pencil. First pic is the whole branch. Second shows the point of narrowing, looking towards the stem attachment. The third is looking the other way, out towards the tips. Anyone got any ideas what has caused this?
-
Very helpful, thanks. Point well made and taken.
-
Demolishing Donuts and Severing Stranglers
daltontrees replied to treeseer's topic in Tree health care
Hey, is that you in the video? I was taught from day 1 that a planting pit in clay soil is a recipe for girdling roots. Particularly if the sides of the planting pit are smooth, the new roots just bounce off them and circle round instead. Seems to me a tree root ball in a socket of slithery clay is just waiting to blow over. Personally I have never heard of planting a tree in a manufactured bowl of clay to keep water in. If anything the sides of planting pits should be scarified. -
Yeah, reallly really quiet. Basically you sign up, some lazy git somewhere wants tree work done for tuppence hapenny and doesn't care who does it or how good the job is and can't be bothered even searching on Yell or Google for someone local, they fill in a form online and send it off for free. You and 5 other guys get an email or text with the contact details, then it's a mad rush to get there first. Half the time the lazy git takes the first quote he gets and won't answer the phone to the other companies. I was on it for a short while, you pay £15 to compete with 5 other people for a £60 hedge cut. Service Magic gets £6 x £15 = £90, you get £60 - £15 = £45 and everyone gets pissed off. I told them to shove it. What a total waste of money. They pestered me to re-subscribe but i'd sooner chop my own hands off with the wrong side of a blunt Silky than reward them for exploiting Joe Public's laziness.
-
Quoting myself here, bit odd but... The 'Proper maintenance of waste land' provisions seem to have been modified or commenced in the Housing and Planning Act 1986 (see Scedule 11 para. 22 if you are intersted, I can't figure out what it means).
-
If you're looking in, Tony, can you please explain (briefly) what you meant by 'pat on the back'? It could help me conclude my perspective on TEMPO.
-
Town & Country Planning Act 1971. It may have been re-enacted but I couldn't find a more modern provision. It's headed 'waste land', so a zoom throuhg the headings in the 80 Act might turn it up. I can give you the scottish reference but that's not much use.
-
That's kind of what I am getting round to. I wish there were more 'savvy arbs' who knew the limitations of these systems. Neither Helliwell nor CAVAT are properly valuations. They are multiplied by some fairly arbitrary number that doesn't bear up to examination. AS I have said before, this thread may be of interest to a wider audience than the few that are contributing to it, and as such comparing apples with oranbges is exactly what is needed until people realise that (i) if you are counting fruit, that is fine but (ii) if you're counting apples it's not only wrong but it's downright misleading.
-
Definitely worth a read but (and I don't mind being controversial) far from convincing as proof of the validity of CAVAT. He says" As responsible tree owners, we cannot allow people or firms to get away with damaging our trees, and CAVAT is an effective way to hit the culprits where it hurts and reduce the likelihood of them reoffending." The fear of expensive litigation and of the unknown (bearing in mind we are talking about builders, with no knowledge about tree valuation, who damaged trees) is enough to make them back down. How many of them carried out their own CAVAT valuation, and cross checked it with a Helliwell and CTLA valuation, and then folded because of the overpowering credibiulity of the Council's case? Not many, I suspect. If any. How about if he had said "As accountable public bodies, we cannot allow people or firms to get away with damaging our trees, and CAVAT is an effective way of demonstrating the cost to the public purse and recovering that amount from the culprits." But he didn't. It just sounded instead like sabre-rattling.
-
It took a bit of digging but I found it. Section 65 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1971 "If it appears to a local planning authority that the amenity of any part of their area ... is seriously injured by the condition of any garden, vacant site or other open land in their area, then ... the authority may serve on the owner and occupier of the land a notice requiring such steps for abating the injury as may be specified in the notice .."
-
Aye but on the Isle of Man the Act was changed to include deciduous trees AND individual trees.
-
Compressive & tension reaction wood
daltontrees replied to David Humphries's topic in Tree health care
It's OK, I amn't troubled, I usually research my contributions to Arbtalk obsessively, but sometimes I think I don't leave a lot of scope for other people to contribute. That's what I was apologising for. I am on the lookout for pictures that illustrate the subject, hasta la vista. Much more interesting for the average Arb than my dictionarytalk. -
You're welcome... Does anyone on Arbtalk havve any experience of the high hedges legislation being put into practice in the Isle of Man, particularly deciduous trees or individual trees. I am very curious to know how the seasonal nature of deciduous tree shade is measured and applied to the test of 'reasonable enjoyment' of a property. The Manx Guidance ducks the issue completely.
-
Compressive & tension reaction wood
daltontrees replied to David Humphries's topic in Tree health care
I thought it was fair comment, but I apologise now for killing the thread stone dead. -
The guy topping the tree with an axe at 160 feet on spikes and a rope strop is the business. I'll never take a chainsaw for granted again.
-
tree preservation 101 - landowner has to decide if the risk associated with foreseeable failure of the tree are unacceptable and then decide whether it needs felled, reduced, fenced off or whatever. You don't ask the LA, you tell them what you plan to do and it's up to them to stop you if they disagree or want to take the rap for failure.
-
Plenty of homework for me then... The Scott Cullen article is one I know well. It is nothing short of a masterpiece of english. I commend it to anyone. It doesn't say much about CTLA but it certainly establishes the context for DRC valuations.
-
Aesthetic appearance is one of the criteria for special architectural interest, quite rightly so, it's the quintessence of good architecture. The word 'pretty' is much too subjective and soft for my liking, the term 'intrinsic beauty' in teh Guidelines seems an improvement on 'prettiness'. Trees can be gaunt and tortured-looking, far from pretty but wuite beautiful at the same time because we can marvel at their tenacity, history, context even if they are not pretty lollipops.
-
As the saying goes, there are only three things that affect the value of property - location, location and location. Context is everything because context means location. Your reference to improvement notices is a useful one, I will look into it (scottish legislation always seems to differ slightly), I was involved in the would-be compulsory purchase of a derelict site a few years ago on the basis of its detriment to the amenity of the area. Something that I suspect would be easy to pull off after the war on bombsites than these days when the owner was just sitting back waiting for development offers and using the state of the site to create local political desparation for any sort of development consent that would make the problem go away. I don't agree entirely about listed buildings, the statutory purpose of listing is to preserve buildings that are of special architectural or historical significance. They may have local context but otehrwise are not location-sensitive. A stately home would be just as worthy of listing if it was at the end of a long driveway as at the end of a short one. One couldn't say the same about the public amenity value of a tree.
-
I would contend that the sole purpose of a TPO is to preserve the amenity provided by a tree. Its amenity 'value' has presumably already been considered and has formed the rationale for the TPO.
-
THe relevant Guidelines are not too long to reporoduce here in their entirety. 3.2 The Act does not define 'amenity', nor does it prescribe the circumstances in which it is in the interests of amenity to make a TPO. In the Secretary of State's view, TPOs should be used to protect selected trees and woodlands if their removal would have a significant impact on the local environment and its enjoyment by the public. LPAs should be able to show that a reasonable degree of public benefit would accrue before TPOs are made or confirmed. The trees, or at least part of them, should therefore normally be visible from a public place, such as a road or footpath, although, exceptionally, the inclusion of other trees may be justified. The benefit may be present or future; trees may be worthy of preservation for their intrinsic beauty or for their contribution to the landscape or because they serve to screen an eyesore or future development; the value of trees may be enhanced by their scarcity; and the value of a group of trees or woodland may be collective only. Other factors, such as importance as a wildlife habitat, may be taken into account which alone would not be sufficient to warrant a TPO. In the Secretary of State's view, it would be inappropriate to make a TPO in respect of a tree which is dead, dying or dangerous. 3.3 LPAs should be able to explain to landowners why their trees or woodlands have been protected by a TPO. They are advised to develop ways of assessing the 'amenity value' of trees in a structured and consistent way, taking into account the following key criteria: (1) visibility: the extent to which the trees or woodlands can be seen by the general public will inform the LPA's assessment of whether its impact on the local environment is significant. If they cannot be seen or are just barely visible from a public place, a TPO might only be justified in exceptional circumstances; (2) individual impact: the mere fact that a tree is publicly visible will not itself be sufficient to warrant a TPO. The LPA should also assess the tree's particular importance by reference to its size and form, its future potential as an amenity, taking into account any special factors such as its rarity, value as a screen or contribution to the character or appearance of a conservation area. As noted in paragraph 3.2 above, in relation to a group of trees or woodland, an assessment should be made of its collective impact; (3) wider impact: the significance of the trees in their local surroundings should also be assessed, taking into account how suitable they are to their particular setting, as well as the presence of other trees in the vicinity. The word amenity is in the Act, the purpose is very simply stated. " If it appears to a local planning authority that it is expedient in the interests of amenity to make provision for the preservation of trees or woodlands in their area, they may for that purpose make an order with respect to such trees, groups of trees or woodlands as may be specified in the order." There is no latitude in the Act for different LPAs to use TPOs for different purposes. But it is up tot the LPA to decide on expediency and amenity. The lack of case law as to what amenity means might be partly a result of there being no right of appeal to a TPO being made. I agree, context is everything. Even so, you may have noted that the Guidance says that LPAs "are advised to develop ways of assessing the 'amenity value' of trees in a structured and consistent way". Maybe we should all ask our local Council if it has done so.
-
A quick addendum to the previous post. It becomes all important in a valuation to make a distinction between a hypothetical owner and the actual owner. Valuations imitate the market, if most buyers of the house would see it as a good thing to have the tree opposite, it is a net positive. Even if the actual owner hates it. After all, in theory he could sell the house and buy a similar one without a tree opposite. and in so doing he would be cashing in the value accruing from the tree. A hypothetical buyer will pay x for the house and y more because of the tree. Then our Mr. Unhappy buys anothter similar house for x and pockets y. Valuations should always reflect a hypothetical purchaser. If they reflect an actual purchaser or owner, they are measures of worth. Which are entirely personal and highly subjective. Calling measures of worth valuations is an unforgiveable crime against english. Do it in a professional capacity in property valuation and you are finished. Doing it in the tree world seems de rigueur, and my kind of pedantry is seen as the crime. But if tree valuation is to be credible these issues need to be fixed.
-
Here's my thoughts on one man's benefits being another man's nuisance. Personally I have always liked the way economists classify things like this. The effects of something are either positive or negative. The benefits are felt entirely or partly by the owner of the thing providing the effect, and entirely or partly by others. The effect can be classified as a combination of positive/negative and internal/external effects. Take for example a private lamppost at the mouth of a private driveway on a poorly lit public road. Half of the light reaches the road, and half reaches the driveway and gardens. The electricity and new bulbs are all paid for by the owner. For the owner arriving home late, the light allows the driveway to be negotiated safely, dispels fears about people lurking, makes the property feel secure and so forth. The light goes into the front bedroom and can make it harder to get to sleep there. So the internal effects are generally positive, the small negative effect being a bearable downside. Otherwise the owner could just switch off the light. So, that's a net positive internality (i.e wne perceived from inside the owner's perceptions). The passing pedestrian or driver gets benefits too. Driving or walking is safer. It is a useful landmark at night. Cars coming out of the driveway can be seen more easily, contributing to mutual safety. So, that's a net positive exernality. The house is a farm house. It breeds pigs. The smell on a summer's day is eye-watering. The owner doesn't care, the drawback is tolerable because it's his livelihood. He can smell it more strongly than anyone, but the human olefactory mechanism has the useful feature of getting tired and not noticing a smell after a while. For the owner there are psitive and negative effects of pig farming. On balance they are positive. A net positive internality. But for the passsing pedestrian it's different. And hte pedestrian cannot choose another route. The smell is forced upon his fresh nostrils. There are no upsides unless you are a fan of 'fresh country smells'. So that's a net negative externality. So what about a tree on the front boundary that blocks it's owner's views and light yet he can do nothing about it because it is TPOd and his application to remove it has been refused because the tree is liked by everyone else in the neighbourhood. It is the owner that pays to have the leaves collected every year and to keep his electric lights burning all day in the inadequately lit front rooms. I would suggest thte tree is a net negative internality. The Council clearly feels it is a net positive externality. I think what I am getting at here is that the net effect of anything depends on whose pespective you are looking at things from. And here is where I have a serious problem with tree valuations. They engender confusion about who benefits from net positive effects. A Council might well attach a value to a TPOd private tree, but it is almost certainly doing it as a measure of net positive externalities. We mustn't ever forget that a TPO is a form of public appropriation (without compensation) of part of a private property. My earlier comments about street trees might make more sense, because if the tree is entirely public owned, the owner opf the house opposite it can get all the benefits it wants form the amenity of teh tree without paying and presumably the COuncil doesn't mind because (i) it can't do anything to recover a proportion of the tree's value anyway (ii) providing street trees is what Councils do and (iii) the public benefits are of overriding importance. The public per the Council is the internal. The tree has a net positive internality. If the ex adverso owner likes it it has for him a net positive externality. If he hates it it has a net negative externality. It would be the same if the lamppost was moved onto the footway and adopted by the Council. Other valuation systems are obsessive about setting out these distinctions. Tree valuation systems don't.
-
Tackling the definition of 'Amenity' in the statutory context for trees is on my to-do list for this thread. I will be interested when the time comes as to what people think of it. I will gather my thoughts on TEMPO at that point.
-
I hope you will appreciate that not all people looking at this thread or even contributing will have as seasoned a view of amenity tree valuation as you. Whatever reason I started the thread for, I think it involved at least giving something for arbs to refer to for a general understanding of the principles. I would like to bring people along with us or else they would get lost in the hard-core debate that I think you would prefer to see here. Incidentally, I think the Helliwell system is a pile of pants and not worthy of the name 'valuation'. But I'll get to that soon enough.