daltontrees

Attached is a pic of the Black Pine being topped out.

Hi all, exhausted but free after several hard days' survey and tree work I have alittle time to catch up on the debate. Please take my earlier comments in context, I am often leaving the house at 7am, 2 hours before light, measuring and chalking up tree diameters in the dark so that I can start survey at 8.30 or 9 if it is overcast. And back home at 5.30. Or as happened this week we were taking down a large Black Pine that shifted considerably in the wind and rain last week. I was 15 metres up it in the dark trying to redistribute its centre of gravity. I characterised it as urgent and advised the owner to get rid of it despite the expense. You can use it as an example if you want and can question my judgement on that advice. Let me know and I will provide details. I have a a lot of first-hand information about the tree. My snippiness last posting came from tiredness, lack of time and what I perceived as criticism of my professional judgement. I would prefer to see QTRA justified on its own merits than by trying to find inadequacy in my methods. Acer Ventura is clearly very eloquent and a practiced in rhetoric, and I would not like to see the opportunity for open discussion stifled by fear of attrition. Moving on, I have now just read the Practice Note. It doesn't really show the nuts and bolts of QTRA but what it does tell me is that the methods I use are similar. I do not try to put across the financial savings on tree work and the tree benefits of retention that might come from refinements of our version of risk assessment. The client invariably makes the view on that clear. We advise then we take instruction then we act entirely within that instruction. So back to the Practice Note ("PN") and what I understood from it, and I think this might illuminate things a little for anone still looking in. The PN says much about probablility of target being present at the time when failure is most likely, which I think is QTRA's strongest suit. It says a little about the severity of harm and attaches weighting to it relative to the cost of damage to property. It says relatively little about the assessing the probability of failure. Let's say the three things that combine to produce the overall risk rating are these; target presence, severity of harm/extent of damage to property and likelihood of failure. Where I think people struggle to complete the arithmetic is the last one. It is really difficult to evaluate. A weak fork, an extensive cavity, an already lifted root plate, no matter how good our invasive and non-invasive investigation toolbox it is very very difficult (I would go as far as saying impossible) to pin down, even to differentiate between say a 1:5 an a 1:50 probability. Yet, such parameters may be enough to take the overall risk from 1:1,000,000 to 1:100,000 or from 1:100,000 to 1:10,000. The PN as I see it says little about this, but are there any users that can say whether QTRA is helpful on the matter or whether this is left to the judgement of the inspector and the limitations of budget for sophisticated investigations. Or both?

Sorry, I scarcely have time to eat and sleep these days, the Forum is a luxury. However, byu now I feel as if I am defending myself for jocular commetns directed at RobArb whom I know would like help to get his head around the quantification of risk. I don't have a problem with it and my methods are more sophisticated than you seem to think. I'd rather not be the cadaver that is dissected for this particular subject, and we may just have to disagree about whether a tree-owners duty of care can be discharged without the use of QTRA. I and my clients are/am satsfied with the results of my black box and I shan't have to explain in court why someone didn't get hurt. I am sure the courts will find QTRA reassuring but the law doesn't say you have to use it, just what you need to achieve.

Just a brief note. I can't share this specific calculation with you because it would be a breach of client confidentiality in terms of my contract. However, I would be willing when time allows to reproduce calculations for a hypothetical tree in the same situation. Rob, if you stand under such a tree for 5 years you will come a cropper. If a rota is drawn up whereby you have a 1 minute slot in those 5 years where you have to stand under the tree, the risk to you is still unacceptable because you may get the minute when it alls over.

The lozzatrees rule of thumb as used by us is for repollarding lapsed pollards. The Lollipop Lime annual scalp seems to me so unnatural as to need no rationalisation in terms of tree physiology.

There are many trees in the background to be enjoyed and hugged, this poor specimen one look unbearably close to a building, you would be doing it and the occupiers a kindness by getting it removed before it becomes a bigger problem.

Since Lord Kelvin's name has been evoked, let me indulge myself with a cheesy link that a Radio 2 DJ would be proud of. I am currently surveying all the larger trees on the north side of the Kelvin for the local authority. You may (if you know the area) think 'NO! Surely not? That's a ridiculously onerous and enormous task.' We ll it is enormous and it is onerous but it will hopefully turn out by the end of March to have been possible. Not only am I to carry out a VTA of the trees but I have to assess the risk relative to the 1: 10,000 and 1:1,000,000 thresholds and in the band between I must specify and prioritise the treeworks necessary to achieve the ALARP criteria. I don't use any black box system. I am there on survey for several weeks, and being from the area generally I am aware of the way that the area is used habitually and occasionally by residents and visitors. The other day I found myself faced with a medium sized tree with high probability of failure (it definitely won't be there in 5 years) and will kill someone outright if they are unfortunate enough to be underneath when it fails. The usage of the path is low but I know that in summer there will be people passing and lingering frequently. A quick calculation, with chalk on the pavement, suggests that if there is someone beneath the tree for only 1 minute a year the risk is unacceptable at 1:1,000,000 and on the ALARP principle with my estimation of the average at-risk time throughout the year, the risk cannot be rendered acceptable except by felling the tree within 3 months. In the very woods that Lord Kelvin would have seen from his window, and before reading this thread, I felt in my mind the release of tension that comes with the satisfactory exercise of professional judgement. Admittedly there is rarely such clear calculation, rarely a convenient pavement to thrash out the calculations on, and it can take a couple of weeks in a park observing dog-walking, jogging, illicit drinking, littering, informal social gatherering and the use of short-cuts to extrapolate usage across a whole year, but in the end I have fould that a satisfactory defensible quantification can be arrived at without anything more than observation, judgement and chalk. I have not used the QTRA system, although I hope to someday. I would contend nevertheless that is it possible to quantify risk and to exercise professlional judgements as risk aware rather than risk averse (my client demand nothing more or less than that) without buying in to a formal system. Others may, and probably do, differ from this and would welcome a rigorous systematic analysis of risks. Much like an England Ireland rugby match, we all imagine and hope for a great sporting affray of blood, guts, derring-do and end-to-end stuff but so often a result is just ground out on penalties. OK, that's a bit of a dodgy analogy and another Radio 2 stylee link, but I shall leave this oblique answer to my own question at that and will look in on this thread when next I get the chance as I have found it quite illuminating so far.

Hello I have just come across this thread, catching up on it has been hard work. I advocated quantification of tree risk in the original RobArb thread but I suspect I failed to persuade. By happy coincidence the Ireland England game has created a lull at the juncture where my only principal quaestion in the whole matter can be inserted just when it is about to be discussed. Any system that you have to pay for but is a 'black box' i.e. input plus some mysterious process equals output is liable to be viewed cyncially when a more open and free system is available. Hopefully it will be clear from the other thread that I am obsessively in favour of attempting to quantify risk. The question; appreciating that you may have a slightly vested interest in arguing one way rather than the other, nevertheless can you say whether a satisfactory risk assessment can be achieved in general circumstances without the use of the paid-for QTRA model? Your persuasive reasoning thus far seems to suggest that it can by the average competent assessor.

We work to the Lozzatrees rule but with a 3 to 4 multiplier for limes rather than 5.

Ahh, one needs to be so careful what one says on the Forum. I should have said 'commonest' on Yew. The stage of completeness of the database is not known but perhaps there are more records not yet added to it. Anyway, it is a useful indicator of some sort of the geographical spread. 32 is a good start. In that context, I withdraw 'common' and replace it with the wishy-washy 'not unheard of'.

I recall BS3998 has guidance on whether to leave, and how big.

Nothing to add except as you will have gathered there are competing opinions on teh benefits and drawbacks of various species including brambles and (since you are co-owners) I would strolngly recommend that you draft a management plan setting out objectives (say wildness and nature vs access and play, trees vs wood production etc.) and circulate it to co-proprietors for comments, working towards a consensus or majority that everyone can sign up to. There is plenty of advice on the web about simple woodland management plans. If you can get sign-off on a managemnet plan then you can produce a simple initial and then annual plan of action. Who knows, you may get co-proprietors to agree to an annual action day when you all get stuck in and do the bulk of clearance with many hands. Finally, if you can get yourselves set up as a constituted body in a simple form, you may well be eligible for one or more of the small woodland estabilshment/management grants. Buy-in (not with money, just in spirit) from the Planning Authority may help too, remember TPOs don't mean no tree work they just mean the amenity should be preserved (or enhanced) by what is proposed and the Planning Authority would surely be willing to endorse selective removals, thinning etc. in teh context of a long term plan and appropriate planting complementary to encouragement of habitat and biodiversity. You are perhaps in an enviable position, I think most people on this forum would love to have a small woodland to shape and manage.

Capnobotrys seems to be common on Yew, see British Fungi - record details The synonym antennaria pinophyla is throwing me, may be getting confused with the black sooty mould Antennatula pinophyla

I was going to say you're lucky to be alive after that but I should say you're smart to be alive 'cos if you hadn't bothered putting the helmet on...

Interesting thread. I am still curious about whyt advantage there is tot eh tree (or indeed to the individual stem of these corky wings. The suggestion of protection against animals seems sound, Field Maples have very sugary sap and the closely related Sycamore is often ravaged by squirrels taking the thin bark off entirely on younger stems. If the cork is not just thick but is unpleasant tasting for squirrels that would be a very good defence. The other odd characteristic of Field Maples is that they can feel warmish tot eh touch on a cold day. Even in winter, it seems there is a lot of metaboilic activity. Do they keep the heating on, as it were, all winter to avoid frost damage? And if so the insulating characteristics of cork could be very useful. On the other hand, the additional surface area, for little change in cross sectrional area, surely has the net effect of cooling fins in reducing stem temperature. And the crevices on the stem must be a haven for overwintering insects, not a good thing for any tree. Whatever advantage to the plant, it must outweigh the disadvantages or did so when and wherever the species evolved. Anybody come up with a reliable reason for the corking?

I have seen it on a few young A. campestre around Glasgow, but it is not always present. Don't know what it's for though.

Good outcome. I think that when you said 'permitted development' you meant 'consented development'. Permitted development is a general term for woks that don't need permission, usually because they are trivial or small scale. And for the truly hardcore worriers, permitted development rights can be withdrawn by a LPA in conservation areas.

I think you have all given up, so for the record the second one is Toona Sinensis.

I should have added, TPO consent is not required for tree works that are part of the implementation of a planning consent. For completeness, and once the dust has settled, I would suggest that the Council revokes any TPO that might be affecting the developed land, otherwise it will turn up time and time again in land registry searches, needing an explanation every time. And I suppose we are all conditioned to think that a TPO means no tree work ever, but it really just means permission is needed first and the Guidance is clear (if not the legislation, but I can't track the relevant section down just now) that detailed consent, with or without reserved matters relating to trees, overrides a TPO.

Interesting questions... I would suggest the following. 1. Only substantial tree works on trees that are part of the consent either explicitly or implicitly could be considered commencement of development i.e. if there are other non protected (neither by TPO nor planning conditions) trees on the application site (as delineated in the application) which are unaffected by the development, the removal of these would not be implementation of the consent. 2. This is what I would suggest is implicit consent to remove the TPOd trees, but there is a remote danger that the LPA could claim retrospectively that it thought the trees were to be retained within the car park. If you are satisfied that the application and the associated drawings openly indicvate that the trees will not be present on completion of the development as consented, and if there are no conditions relating to the trees then their removal should be immune from prosecution. 3. Ahhhh! Scrap the aforegoing, I wouold suggest a precautionary approach that starts with checking with the LPA that it is aware of the trees, their TPOd status and the implicit removal of them to implement the consent. 4. The LPA cannot withdraw the issued consent unless by making a Revocation Order (which they never do and which could give rise to expensive compensation liabilities for them). I would think the LPA could waive reserved matters, effectively simplifying and altering the consent b ut it couldn't add conditions. If you have an advantageous consent that allows the argument that removal of TPOd trees is implicit, I would hold the LPA to it. 5. If it is a garden, no felling license is required. Also if the development is consented and the felling of trees is immediately required to implement a planning consent. On both counts (opnly one is needed) you seem to eb in the clear.

We don't know if the original creator of the thread is still looking in, so it might be academic anyway. But for what it's worth the tree is a leaner towards a bungalow and when it fails it will break the house in two and could hurt anyone inside. The concrete fell out because it doesn't fit the hole any more and/or because the stem was flexing more than usual. Scalping the tree is bound to give the decay the upper hand in the ongoing battle. If the house gets dented the building insurer's going to ask questions about why nothing was done (or no professional advice was commissioned) about such a glaring defect. I liked the replanting nearby and scalping meantime idea. Anything else is russian roulette.

Give it a sniff, if it is a bit vile it's Polar, if it's sweet it's Ash.

Alliaria, I should have clarified your Sapindus guess is not right and also doesn't have an oriental location reference in either the common or the scientific name.

thieving gets at my bank have just written to say they are putting the service charge on our business account up by 40%. What other form of business in this economic climate could do this? I wish I could.

OK the first one is actually according to the label in the Botanics the Japanese Cork Tree which I recall was given P. lavallei. From one dried leaflet probably indistinguishable from P. japonicum or amurense. Right, that's one oriental place reference used up.