daltontrees

As a risk surveyor I usualy only recommend removal or severance to allow suspected defects to be identifed now or at future surveys, or where the extent of ivy is clearly causing trees to be unduly tall or overextended as a means of not being killed from lack of light. In either case this is restricted to trees near targets or trees important for visual amenity (Cat A or B). It's then the tree owner's decision whether to accept the recommendation or not. It would take a court case to show whether a tree owner is negilgent in ignoring the recommendation to allow a suspected defect to be fully assessed.

As this has absolutely nothing to do with trees, I am delighting already in the time I will save by not engaging with this thread at all from here on in.

I believe Sorbus Intl sells second-hand reconditioned ones now and again.

Looks like ash with cankers, probably just Chalara but could be Pseudomonas.

That's a compilcated question. Have you got a 'for example..."?

Thaks, a valid example. And a simple test of weighing up value against removal costs. To me helliwell is really simple to use. NO valuation judgement is needed, as all 'values' are determined by the £s per point decided annually by the Tree Council per the AA. One size fits all, from Mayfair to Muckle Flugga

A bit farther afield but here's another bit of construction made of cornish granite. The monument to the great war situated on top of Dundee Law, a hill in the centre of the city. The big plagioclases crystals in it were apparently known by the cornish miners as 'horses teeth'. Nothing to do with trees but beautiful anyway.

After 8 years I am giving this thread a bump, I don't recall how it fizzled out but lots has happened since then and I would be keen to hear of anyones' tree valuation experiences or thoughts, good or bad. I am hearing quite regularly of CAVAT being abused as an instrument of extortion. I am all for the arb industry having a means of expressing the worth of trees, but for it to be compatible with the valuation of everything else, from a sticking plaster to a hospital, form woodchip to forests of growing timber, it needs to be defined and needs to measure how much these things change hands for on the open market OR at least how much they cost to make OR how much they earn the owner OR how much they add to the value of land they are fixed to. Otherwise they are not valuations, they are estimates of worth or are fantasies. CAVAT doesn't do any of those. Anyway I have submitted an article to the Arb Mag for publication soon, on this general subject, but meantime (and probably till the day I die) I am open to discussion and anecdotes, the more the better. It's not as dry a subject as you might think.

That is beautiful, carved granite channel sections. Cornish? I kind of agree with you but this also complements my idea that if you make an area flat and smooth you are more likely to get sued for trip hazards. Therre was a Court of Session case about this a few years ago, someone fell off a path in a country park and sued the Park authority, but the judge said that someone using a rough path in an area like that should expect to be more careful. Case dismissed.

Yes compensation is due after the event, or a negotiated settlement before the event. But isn't s278 just for public highway rather than publicly accessible areas? Besides, CAVAT is nonsense (in my carefully considered opinion😟) anyway.

Thanks, but it was more the 'go for' but that I was curious about. I'm quite familiar with CAVAT but I am perplexed about what situations it is being used in, and how.

I'm intrigued, what does 'go for CAVAT' mean?

It occurs to me that if the tarmac is not needed and you remove it but leave the roots there as a trip hazard your liability will not be os great, Basically if you make something look like a pedestrian surface people walk on it expecting it to be safe but if it's a rough surface the law expects them to be more careful. The case law I know of is not encouraging, it favours the professional idiot who would trip over anything in broad daylight.

£5 per tree, 200 trees. Only saw it twice becaue it was a 2 day job.

Climber + groundie + chipper, 1 day. You haven't seen it. I've done bigger jobs in half a day. The fee for the survey and spec and photois showing pruning points, pro rata on the whole job, is £5. The reduction is specified to minimise the acceleration of decline. All trees need removing as some point. The client should have the info at hand to decide when to do it, rahter than be bullshitted into it now by a contractor who wants to be the one that lands the job and is willing to mislead the client as to the level of risk. The tree is TPO'd. The thieving lying bastard could have cause the client to remove a tree unlawfully based on use of an exemption that could not be justified. I know the TO, he would refuse an application to remove. And quite rightly, it's not necessary. I can't speak for other consultants, there's cheats in every game. If your cheats were milking it for more work, they must be shit if they are not already too busy for that sort of nonsense. I don't advertise and I am run off my feet with purely referrals and repeat business.

I know this particular contractor's in-house consultant to be rather prone to recommending unnecessary work, she is famous for it and has been caught out before, including by me. The client was so incredulous of the recommendation to fell that he sought a second opinion, from me. The client may decide to take more drastic action than reduction, but at least he will know that the reduction will leave the tree at an acceptable level of risk for a few years and if he makes a longer term strategic decision to remove completely it is an informed decision rather than a self-serving unjustified recommendation to hav ethe same contractor remove it. I make no apology for the accusation of thieving lying bastards, but this is specific to this one company.

A 'clear' outcome from drilling or Picus would allow retention of the tree, but that's never going to be the outcome. This is where the problems start, investigations will at best be a sample of likely decay extent and would need very skilful interpretation to be able to derive remaining strength on which to predict likelihood of failure and base a decision as to whether to retain or intervene in some way. I'd bet the K.d pre-dates the work 5 years ago. It is fairly slow moving, Lonsdale or someone like that recokoned 30 years from infection to failure. I generally see it as reaching the outside from the inside, so when you see fruiting it's a bad sign unless it's deep between otherwise healthy and sound butresses or ribs. K'd start as a soft rot, progressing to white rot. This accelerates on aeration. Notably acoustic velocities can remain unchanged right up to the bitter end so a Picus may be of limited help. White rot is not normally associated with brittle failure, but that's what I see on Beech. All or nothing. There's no right answer. Expensive and possibly inconclusive investigations, probably followed up with crown reduction at best or removal at worst, or a best-guess non invasive sounding leading again to some sort of works. Both scenarios are stalling the inevitable tree death. This needs to be weighed up against duty of care liability and how much the tree is valued by the owner and/or would be valued in a reduced stature. Fungicidal treatment? What a load of bollocks. The industry is set up differently in US than here, but if it were here I'd say do not ask a contractor. Ask a a consultant (who will not benefit from any paid tree work) to advise on all the aspects so that the client can make an informed decision that should be to some extent backed by the consultant's duty of care and insurance if litigation should arise. I am going out ina few minutes to look at a Beech that is a good bit bigger than yours, on the edge of a national tourist venue. Lots of decay a tthe base. The contractor's in-house consultant advised removal (£3K) but my preliminary look at it last week suggested a few metres off the top (£500) and it'll be OK for another 15 years. Thieving, lying bastards. Yours, like my client's, might be a situation that merits paying for impartial advice.

Pseudo-science? To pass the PTI you don't have to believe in it, you just need to be able to regurgitate it. But iunderstanding it will stand anyone in good stead for the future. The thing is, when I'm doing risk assessments of trees paid for by clients, they set me a pass rate of 100%. Aim high!

Missing an important point here, cable operators have powers to take entry to footways under the PUSWA or New Street Works Acts, the Council can't stop them in most situations. I used to work for a Council when the town I worked in first got cable. They started off by wanting to use Council owned verges because the dig was cheaper but I insisted on individual wayleaves and I checked on NJUG adherence and quality of reinstatement, so much so that they changed instead to digging up pavements because they didn't need wayleaves and I had no power to supervise. In most locations they were in and out before you knew it, leaving only a slowly sinking reinstatement to show for it for years to come.

Jumping to conclusions, the cable co. could be lying. In my expereince they don't get all (or any of) the permissions they need or if they do it's conditional on following NJUG guidelines, which they couldn't spell never mind follow.

Holy shomoley! Blocking cracks and cavities to avoid occupation by bats is more or less admission that they are roost features. And blocking them is against the law. Dodgy practice!

Exactly! Ask a bat person to get involved and expect indefinite delays and expense.

I wouln't bother with the Standard, not at full price anyway. There's only a couple of pages that are actually of practical use to arbs and these are pretty much covered by the micro guide and an article that Jim Mulholland of the AA did about soft felling a couple of years ago.

Yeah but there's no problem with being in the firing line if they're only throwing water balloons at you from 100 yards away. Perspective and proportion is all.