daltontrees

I'm with you on that. It was also a Steve Wright trait that always bugged me. That and talking or even worse singing all over the end of records. I won't miss him. But we'll probably get some self-absorbed monotonic Mills/Moyles clone in his place and Radio 2 will be officially a no-go area from the start of Jeremy Whine right through to just after Zoe Ball in the morning.

Good point, well made.

Absolutely. It's the client's tree. The only person thart can make him fell it agaist his will is the Forestry Commission (sanitation felling) or a court of law (say, actionable nuisance).

I agree with you and john87 on this. There are a lot of people high up in the tree world going around stating that Councils are obliged to provide for tree planting and protection, but for their convenience they omit the 'wherever appropriate' bit. In effect the legislation is not there to create an obligation to plant or protect, it is there to create an obligation to use conditions to give effect to appropriate decisions to do so. A very important distinction. Beware of deliberate or careless ignorance of it.

Agreed. Arbs recommend, clients decide. If they are involved, Planners take a view on that.

I could have been clearer. Clause 5.4.3 of BS5837 says the AIA should show the trees to be removed. BUT it is not for the Arb to decide that, it is for the client to do in consitation with the designers and having regard to the arb evidence. It is almost never the job of the arb to justify removals, but the arb should provide all the data and evidence needed for the client to make informed decisions about this. Recommedations can be made, but the client doens't need to follow them. It is therefore downright ridiculous for the situation ever to arise where the arb shows a tree as to be removed in the final report submitted to Planning unless the client has told him to do so. There is a clean break between the survey/constraints plan and the AIA/protection plan. In reality, people like me regularly do a survey and TCP then the client says 'fine now here's the design that we've decided on, do an AIA'. That after all is what the AIA is for, it shows the effect of the selected design on the trees, sometimes meaning removal, sometimes pruning, sometimes protection. I usually tell the client what the consequences of the design are and give him a last opporotunity to adjust, then the AIA goes to print and to Planning. Too many arbs get sucked into justifying the removals, but it is not their job to do so, it's not necessary and it's rarely helpful if the evidence is already there in the survey report and schedule. I work for many of the volume house builders, as well as for Councils and many others. If I just once submitted a report to Planning without client's prior approval, I'd get my arse kicked, and rightly so. I'd kick it myself if I could. The moment the report goes to Planning there is a possibility of approval with conditions that hold the client to the protection measures. Whereas a Council is unlikely to enforce removal of trees if the client changes his mind, it's professionally a sloppy situation to put the client in.

The recommendation should not be made unless the tree is potentially affected by the development. And the recommendation should not appear in the final report unless and until the client wants it to be.

You can. No consultant should state that a tree is to be removed without the client's approval. Gnenerally no consultant shoudl finalise a report wihtout client's approval.

Yoo were charged £2500 for that? It's the sort of thing I do routinely for £350. Only better.

The trees are protected by the planning conditions. Council entirely within its rights to do this. Indeed, the legislation says it's an obigation on the Council to use conditions to protect trees.

Looks very much like Luncombe, with tell-tale mucronate lobes.

Shameful attitude.

Heave is only a potential issiue if there are shrinkable clays. Concentrate on that, before moving on to the other issues, like trees and fundations.

Top is cherry, it even has a cherry in the picture. Probably Gean Prunus avium. 2nd one is Common Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna

If you can fit in the RPA between the road and the outside of the ditch by elongating the RPAs parallel to the road/ditch then I'd probably do that. Whether the roots (the important ones, remember the RPA is not the same as the rooting area) to under roads, under ditches and aunder ploughed fields depends on species, soil type and a load of other things.

Because it rarely ends well. One branch gets rubbed and weakened to the point of failure, and in the meantime (as Slater reasons) the fork below gets weaker and weaker with included bark and when the brace fails so does the fork. Plus I just like to see stuff radiating outwards from the centre. For highly visible trees that sort of aesthetic can be important.

Did you see the ICF has just added another module to the PME, called the professionalism e-module? Basically a test of knowledge of the code of prefessional conduct? More to worry about. The ICF is running a couple fo free 'Ask the Assessor' online 1 hour sessions next week, but I don't think you'd be allowed to ask questions about a specific CA.

You can't be sued for unbalancing a tree and potentially causing it to fall over. What would be wrong is unbalancing it without giving its owner fair warning that that might cause it to fall over. The tree is encroaching, it has not and never will have a right to be in your airspace and no notice of cutting back to the boundary need be given but as I say at common law a resultant failure and harm or damage could attract liability if the tree owner had no knowledge and oportunity to avoid the failure. There's one amendment to that. If someone cut a tree purely so that it would fall onto someone else's property, that would be malicious and I believe they could be sued. Personally I think they should. People deny access for work in these situations for a variety of reasons, it can be bloody-mindendess, it can be the hope that the extra costs and hassle of the work without access will put the neighbour off, it can even be the desire to put the neighbour to the maximum costs, but it's never genuine reasons. One -off trespass without damage is trivial in the eyes of the law, and if a stem were used briefly for a rope anchor to improve safety I think a court would chuck out a trespass suit. I'm glad no-one has rolled out the old 'criminal damage' myth on this one. At court, the law respects obvious rights and reasonable behaviour, and does not concern itself with trivialities.

I confess, I'm a natural brace remover unless the crossing is fused or unless the tree is in a risk-free environment. It rarely ends well otherwise.

Slater's prone to bold statements. Having been to one of his talks, I believe he's a bit of a dramatist. But I don't think he's saying that all compression forks are a result of natural bracing, he's saying all included bark is. I happen not to agree. Any situationthat results in a compression fork not flexing normally and thus allowing the bark cambium to generate bark within a compression over one or more years could create included bark. The deadwweight of overextended leaning substems can do this. I've even seen rocks jammed in forks by kids doing it. Articicial bracing could do it. And i think it may vary from speies to species, because the force exerted by the annual increment of woody tissue within a compression area may or may be not be great enough to crush the cambium and this may depend on porosity and other species-specific characteristics.

I am resubmitting mine this year, passed all the other bits last time but the CA was knocked back on pretty dubious grounds. Can swop notes with you but can't 'help'.

The British Standard for planning surveys says you have to tag the trees.

So after practicing in the mirror, the next day the young man gets up courage and during dinner he stands up, taps his tin mug to get everyone's attention and confidently says 'Twenty three'. To his amazement the place erupts in laughter. He asks the old lag what that was all about, who wipes a tears of laughter from his eyes and says 'We hadn't heard that one before".

R. ulmarius is not actively pathogenic and tends to colonise exposed heartwood in wounded mature or maturing trees, so the chances of it affecting a young replacement are as good as zero. Also I have never seen or heard of it on hornbeam or birch. I'd say crack on with a replacement, just don't use horse chestnut, elm, maple (inc sycamore) or poplar.

Ah but what I don't know about tertiary igneous petrology is not worth knowing. Then for the final I have the music of Boney M.😀