daltontrees

Small holes in teh exposed wood in pic 1 and 3 suggests beetle exit hole, long-dead wood. If it's Stereum it's munching deadwood, not killing. It seems to be the goat of the fungus kingdom, will eat anything anywhere.

I would agree with the last point, it looks like the RHS substem is flexing at the point of contact, making complete fusion improbable. As it is flexing other than at a natural union where reaction wood could readily be formed, it look dodgy. That rippling does indeed suggest fibre buckling and the thickening above the contact likewise suggests adaptive growth to strengthen the buckling section. At a guess, there has been a limb on the RHS stem going round the back of the LHS one that has long since been destroyed by the contact. I wonder what's going on in there now? And if dynamic bracing high up would transfer the loads of excessive movement of the LHS to ther RHS and exacerbate shear forces at the contact? If so, fixed bracing lower down closer to the contact could be better. My bracing experience is limited, I am just speculating from a theoretical perspective

I would be cautious about that, what is notified is the intended work not the intended outcome, and unlike TPO application the reasons for the work don't need to be given. LPA could argue that in not TPOing last time notification was received it has not necessarily sanctioned the longer term management of the tree at that height. It would certainly not give immunity from prosecution. Whether prosecution would take place (probably not) and whether it would be successful is a separate matter. There could also be other considerations for the Council in deciding about re-polling such as the tree's health following the last polling and whether it can stand another one just now. I think it's always safer to notify, wait and then proceed. Right now would be a bad time to re-poll up here, some of teh poplars have only been in leaf a few weeks, midsummer would be less harmful to tree, no?

Me too, first night of the year when I felt no need to put the woodburner on.

By precautionbary I just mean don't tempt fate by camping under the afffected limb.

Well, you would have to define job. The Original Poster could be remiss in tellinmg client that it's fine unless it starts to show dieback. What I mean is I would suggest they keep clear of it until the situation is more thoroughly investigated. But, what can we tell from one ooicture and a few words? Only enough to try and point a fellow Arb in the right direction and to suggest a precautionary approach.

Phew, thank goodness for that. I didn't want to hurt your feelings by saying that it didn't look at all like a chicken.

Ahem! First sign of anything serious happening might be picking the limb up off the deck. From what I have seen of Inonotus hispudus, it can result in rapid loss of strength without much if any sign of dieback. Ash can be in full leaf and then snap at the base showing nothing more than a healthy bark and a couple of rings of healthy wood and all the rest of the innards gone. Not necessarily due to this fungus but ash has no heartwood just ripewood that when it starts to decay seems to be very vulnerable. I.h causes simultaneous white rot, just about the worst kind. I would suggest you confirm the identification of the fungus. I am no expert on I. hispidus so personally I would take a precautionary approach and assume the worst until otherwise demonstrated. I certainly wouldn't tell client not to worry nor would I immediately take the fungus as proof of the need to take the tree down.

Neither, I'd say they're talking nonsense.

Sorry, I've been off for a few days. As ever the Forum has been useful for rehearsing arguments and eliminating silly mistakes before they are made. I don't do 5837 reports or give related advice every day but the debate here helps to prepare to give that advice better. I have been in front of Lands Tribunal, Public Local Inquiry and Planning Appeal, examined or cross-examined in each case by Counsel. Not very relaxing. Slavering lawyers as I have said before are nothing by comparison. I confess to playing with the semantics of 'comply' and follow through', it's the same thing as when tree surgeons state that all the work they do complies with BS3998 when it very very clearly doesn't.. 'Compliant' isn't as honest as 'in accordance with', but as TS says it's the following through that counts and as everyone says it is about having a reasonable interpretation of the BS, stating it and then applying it. No slavering lawyer and few Councel will be able, willing or required to question professional arboricultural judgement and will concentrate instead on reasonability of approach and credibility. Drawing the occasional square circle in the boat isn't material if it isn't necessary, but trying will just make one look like a fool.

Me too in Glasgow, battrered by hailstones and by 7pm the house was cold, with a gusty wind outside. Got through a basket of Ash logs, two fingers to the gasman.

Just to clarify that last sentence, an example of proposed use might be 'high density flatted residential development' or '2,000m2 single storey healthcare facility'.

Tha's a very thorough reply, can't really argue with any of it and I am encouraged to hear that at least some LPAs take it seriously and work through it to get a fair and reasonable outcome. In anticipation that there might be not be much more discussion on this thread, I would summarise by saying that the BS categories don't present a problem, it is what is done with them in the absence of a full understandings of their limitations that could cause problems. And back to teh original post, I would treat the word 'merit' in the same way as I would treat 'quality' i.e. as a floating term that could depict life expectancy OR amenity contribution, and I would now certainly consider the merit in the context of teh proposed use of the site but not the proposed design.

Yeah, been there too... the slavering ones are easy to deal with, just don't get flustered or respond to the aggression. It's the slow measured questioning of Counsel that makes you doubt yourself. Anyway, to tidy up a loose end in my mind, I see that the Categories (A, B etc.) are set up in such a way that I can resolve my asssessment dilemma. The 5837 Categories relate only to two things (i) life expectancy and (ii) quality. The latter is ambiguous. The former is in bands of 'at least [X] years'. So if a tree has say landscape qualities that would put it in the B catergory and make it a B2 (Mid Blue) but has a life expectancy of 40+ years that deserves the A category (Light Green), it can still genuinely be put in the B category because it also (de facto) has a life expectancy of 20+ years. This interpretation taken to its full conclusion is that the tree should be Categorised according to the lower of its life expectancy Category and its Arb/Landscape/Conservation Criterion, all per Table 1. This seems consistent with the thrust of 5837, so we are not bending designs around attractive trees of low life expectancy or hideous ones that will live forever. And whatever 'quality means', if it means health it can be reflected in the life expectancy part of the Category definition and if it means good form it can be reflected in the Criterion definition. That's helped me anyway, sorry if it has confused anyone, if so I can try to explain. I have to tidy it up anyway to add as an explanatory note to my next 5837 report.

Ah but the choices are not equal, one interpretation makes more sense than the other, at least I am suggesting that it does. For the meantime it would seem inappropriate for anyone to wholeheartedly claim to have produced a 5837 compliant report. The claim of having followed 5837 would be bearable, since 5837 describes a process as much as it describes an end product. I can live with the discrepancy and can make sure a client understands what interpretation I have chosen. The difficulty remains that there are trees that cannot be assessed as fitting into one of the codes (A1, B2 etc.). In such cases a caveat that A does not really equal A and 2 does not really mean 2 and Mid Blue really means Light Green is harder to pass off as pragmatism. Or am I making a Buridan's ass of myself?

On the subject of unread reports... Generally I find it best to write even preliminary reports as if they and every word and sentence in them will be held up to the light 5 years hence by some very sharp Counsel whose job is to discredit it and you, so as to undermine your client's arguments. I am sure that overt the years some of my best work has not been read. I was interested to see two posters here saying they could reconcile the seemingly conflicting statements in the BS that the trees should be categorised before design and then after design. I am curious to know how, if anyone can sum up how the argument would be stated. Re-reading the relevant bits of the BS, it seems the trees should definitely be categorised before detailed design but to do so it the context of the proposed use and generalised massing of the development. The desire seems to be to level the playing field a bit between trees and buildings. Such BS5837 reporting as I have done includes, as someone else has indicated, categorisation in both the before and after scenarios. Most trees don't change category but some do. Most developers are in it for the money and want to crack on. They want a valuable consent quickly but may compromise on value to get earlier consent, especially if they have bought the site speculatively. They and their design team may or may not have strong views on whether trees add or detract from sales values and/or running costs. The Council also wants (and has to allow) Local Plan compliant sites to be developed and may make compromises. Both parties act under the constant shadow of appeals options. And here for me is the nub of it. Trees have 2 roles in the planning context. One is they may (internally) make for a better development whether they have to be planted or retained. Two is they provide amenity (externally) to the surrounding area. The Council has a valid role on both counts, mostly on the second one. The developer has a role on both counts too but much more so on the first count. I can't see a case ever for the Category (A, B,C ,U ) being different in the '[5837] tree survey' before and after. What can change though is the Criteria (1,2 ,3 ). Ultimately here's the difficulty. One can't shift a tree from B to A to reflect its existing or proposed landscape qualities unless it miraculously develops a longer life expectancy. All this is aimed at those who wish to glance at the plan and see clear-cut retain/remove trees. Real trees and real life isn't like that but few will read the report. What I struggle to explain is what is meant by 'quality'. 4.4.2.2 talks about assessing 'quality and benefits' yet 4.5.2 talks in exactly the same context about 'quality and value'. Arguably all three terms are interchangeable, and indisputably they overlap. Table 1 uses 'quality' simultaneously in the context of life expectancy and the context of amenity considerations. So, you can't move a tree from B2 to B1, what do you do if it has a life expectancy of 50 years but makes little visual contribution? With this particular flaw in 5837 in mind, the ability to give 'before and after' assessments is a little harder still.

It's not intended to be a spec, just a statement of best practice. Although the frustrated arb 'should' bang his head off a wall, he may elect instead to scream and smash plates. Nothing wrong with that, as long as the deviation from best practice is explained. What matters is that the frustration is dispelled or numbed.

The contradiction between 4.4.1.1 and 4.4.2.2 jumped out at me a couple of weeks ago, I have been trying to reconcile the two in my head ever since. So far I have only managed to do this partially by taking the 'survey' of 1.1 to mean no morr than a recording of species size and position of trees. I expect though that this is all a drafting error in the BS and can't be reconciled. I agree that the underlying intention should be for the tree categories to be decided objectively, but this cannot really be achieved meaningfully without the context of the proposed development. Generally BS5837 is used to manage the planning aspects of a development as they relate to trees. As such the LPA is well used to considering the change not just to the site and its use but to the area around it. Isn't the important thing the amenity provided by the trees as they are (and the extent to which they are or are not currently protected) and the amenity of such trees as are retained, newly planted or pruned (and the extent to which they will be protected)? If so, there are quite a few things to get the head around. But you would have to write yourself a set of sub-rules that both the client developer and the LPA would have to agree to. Before the trees are categorised. But it could be after they are surveyed?

It all sounds ghastly. LAs rarely TPO their own tree, I think it is mildly discouraged by central government but by no means illegal. You can notify all you want for someone else's trees but it doesn't give you permission to enter tehir land and take their trees down. That is a purely civil matter between land owner and would-be feller. There remains a slight danger that the notifier could misconstrue the lack of a TPO in resonse to the notice as permission to enter the land and do work on the trees. This misunderstanding could only arise on LA land, if you think about it. It would of course be wrong and dangerous to infer owner's consent to works in such a case. If the LA is looking for a receipt form sale of land, the cynic in me says the existence of trees will not stop them. LAs are actually not directly accountable for not protecting trees on their own land against loss or damage due to development.

So if there is willingness to change it from SRT to SRWP, why not go the whole hog and call it FRWP, regardless of how many R's are F'd? It's the fixedness that defines the system not the singleness of the rope.

I think I don't really care enough to press the point, and I certainly don't want an argument or to antagonise you, but the point is that SRT is, for all the reasons given, the worst choice of term. Doubled line uses a single rope too. And when it's working it's not a rope it's a line, and it's not so much a technique as a system. And it is confused with other meanings of SRT. So there's not really a single word in it that is as appropriate as other words that could be used. You know what it means, I know, most people do quite quickly get over the ambiguity in it. So do we all go on with an inappropriate term and pass on the inadequacies of it to the next generation and so on ad infinitum or change it and the old guard buy into the change, udse it, teach it, pass it on and the new definition takes over? Resistance to change versus need (if any) for change. About evenly balanced since nobody is dying of it. Personally things that don't don't do what is says on the tin just annoy me, but I am a self-confessed pedant. But it would be SOOOO easy to choose better terms than existing, and remove all ambiguity for everyone everywhere forever....

I juast read the Tree BUzz thread that is discussing all the things that are being discussed here. And I get the overall feeling that no-one is going to decidse anything or do anything about it. Which is a great pity, all these pages and pages and days and weeks of debate wouldn't be happening if the existign terms were adequate and devoid of ambuguity. One refinement on my suggestions that has occurred to me form Treebuzz is to use Positioning instead of Technique. Thus, FLP, MLP and PLP. And the subdivisions BFLP and TFLP.

Uh oh, here we go again on the Notify/Apply confusion. In a CA you notify, you don't apply. It is for the Council to stop you by making a TPO. There is no public consultation on CA notices, but up here in Scotland there is a statutory obligation for the Council to keep a public register of notices and in theory this could result in non-statutory representations. I don't think it's odd at all that the Inspector can overrule the tree officer. Regardless of who in the Council made the decision to refuse a planning application and regardless of whether the decision was made by a Committee or under delegated powers it is the Council's decision and the Council has to defend it if the applicant appeals the decision. The Inspector is part of central government, and the legislation provides for appeals to be dealt with by teh Secretary of State or anyone he delegateds to (i.e. the Inspector). His decision, as long as it is properly administered and reasonable, is beyond reproach.

Good luck it trying to get a sensible convention on this. I am going to be one of those annoying dippers-in and make a couple of comments. Please ignore them if they are stupid or naive. As I see it the D and the S are unfortunate choices because of the confusion between Singe and Static and between Double and Dynamic and between Double and Doubled. And what if there are 3 ropes, do we need a term for Multiple Rope Techniques? Or do we call that Plural, meaning anything other than single? During such a technique it is possible that one line will be fixed and one or more moving. Also it seems that Line is always going to be a better choice than Rope. I suppose L could be confused with Lanyard but if using a term to describe work positioning, that is immaterial. L is better than R if it gets rid of the confusion with Self Rescue Technique. Then there is the difficulty of finding a term that covers climbing, work positioning, fall-arrest, rescue, ascent and descent. Or is one even needed, since SRT currently doesn't have one and just means 'technique' whatever activity it is applied to. And something seems needed for whether the the rope is fixed or moving. I think the simplest is to abandon S and D completely. Call one the FLT (Fixed Line/Lanyard Technique) and the other the MLT (Moving Line/Lanyard Technique). Switching to a PLT (Plural Line/Lanyard Technique) once you're in the tree and using several ropes, slings, flip lines, redirects etc. The T for technique is superfluous but harmless and better than WP for Work Positioning or C for Climbing. There's my suggestion, FLT, MLT and PLT. FLT can be further refined as BFLT for Base Fixed and TFLT for Top Fixed. This seems to cover all the ambiguities, confusions and inadequacies. You either have to decide what the existig terms SRT and so forth mean and get everyone to buy into it, or you have to start again. I would start again becasuse the former is doomed to failure because the terms are inherently badly chosen in the first place.

Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by 'panicky'. And what would the implication be for the tree? Of it being panicky, that is, not of it being Ganoderma?