daltontrees

The full Forsestry Commission definition is "The definition of woodland in United Kingdom forestry statistics is land under stands of trees with a canopy cover of at least 20% (or having the potential to achieve this), including integral open space, and including felled areas that are awaiting restocking. A tree is defined by its species; a list of tree species in British woodland is given in Chapter 4. There is no minimum height for trees to form a woodland at maturity, so the definition includes woodland scrub but not areas of gorse, Rhododendron, etc., outside woodland. This is a different definition from that used internationally which is based on 10% canopy cover and a minimum height at maturity of 5m, but the two definitions are estimated to give similar areas of woodland in the UK. "There is no minimum size for a woodland. In this report, 'woodland' (defined in the glossary) refers to woods and forests of all sizes. The 1995-99 National Inventory of Woodland and Trees mapped all areas down to 2.0 ha, but sample-based information was also collected for smaller woods, small groups of trees and individual trees. The area statistics in Chapter 1 show totals for woods over 0.1 hectares. "Woodland includes native and non-native trees; semi-natural and plantation areas. Woodland habitat types are not currently differentiated in these statistics." However, this is a statistics collection definition, and therefore has its limitations. It could be useful as a starting point, depending on the purpose of trying to define an area as a woodland (or otherwise). It seems to me that anything smaller than 0.1Ha it would be stretching a point to call it a woodland. 0.1ha would measure (if it was square) 30 metres by 30 metres. Or a circle of diameter 35 metres.

Get it copyrighted.

Is that an official term?

https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200126/applications/60/consent_types/4

See the attached. May be a bit out of date, but not substantially. In Scotland this is known as "Planning Permission in Principle", which I think is a much more meaningful term.

Removal of several Hakia trees, a wattle, survey on a couple of declining english oaks and formative pruning of about 1,000 olive trees and 6 water oaks and spec for management pruning of a pin oak. Distant family connection. Nice work if you can get it. On a 500 hectare vineyard, all the Shiraz and biltong you could fit in, free. By the pool. In mid January, their high summer.

Cape Town, South Africa. And I did the job! I only charged for flights and 2 weeks' accommodation for me and my family.

I have just been appointed on a case this morning where this very thing is happening. Worse, it is a detailed consent with all or any tree work being a reserved matter. It's in a Conservation Area. Effectively the trumping of CA by consent has been undone by conditions. Dammit!

Nothing wrong with pedantry when the quasi-judicial purpose of wording demands an absence of ambiguity. Could have been plainer if the wording had said "The removal of both branches would result in large wounds that would have unacceptably high potential to cause decay and loss of the amenity that the tree provides" Leavign the question hanging, wold removal of just one branch be OK?

I wonder if the application would have been treated differently if it was for phased removal of the limbs. The potential for decay could have been reduced to an acceptable level by requiring a satisfactory medhod statement that controlled when the work was done, by whom and how. And I would be asking Sloth's question - what is the reason for the works? If this is an important tree for amenity and the owner's reason for wanting crown lifting were not compelling, the Council could be right in refusing it, although it could certainly have worded it more elegantly.

Assuming you are in England or Wales. No. Maybe I am missing something here, but it seems your LPA wants to ensure that works are only carried out to the tree if consent for development is granted. That may be on principle and/or to allow control of how the work is done and a fuller assessment of just how much work is required. Sorry to disagree with the other contributors and yourself, but it seems that not only can the LPA do it this way but this is the best way it should do it, pending a full detailed application. At that stage the LPA may be satisfied that the tree works are adequately detailed in the application such that the tree works are proportionate and necessary, will only be carried out if development commences and that the works can be controlled by planning conditions. It is not uncommon for indicative schemes to go in with outline applications. This can be useful for the LPA to envisage the likely next stage (i.e. a detailed application), but if outline consent is then granted the indicative layout has no status whatsoever. Likewise any supporting information such as TPP/AIA that did the same job of reassuring the LPA that development is in principle feasible. Put it this way, without that sort of information the LPA migh have been able to decide that access was not possible without unacceptable damage to or loss of trees and that in the right circumstances could competently result in refusal of outline consent. I say this having been involved in cases where outline consent was refused solely on the basis that satisfactory access was not possible in any shape or form.

Your inbox is full...can't reply to your recent message

I know, I live there.

Might be considered what?

Just a general observation here, and be warned I am a bit of a pedant so I am focusing on what was probably an idle choice of preposition by you, viz "at [the bottom]". Fungi that are literally ON the bottom of a tree agre generally bad, they may be either killing and feeding or feeding on dead material (or shades in between), and are cause for closer inspection and fungal ID to arrive at a prognosis for the tree. Fungi AROUND the base of a tree can be good or bad. If they are in reality growing from roots close to the surface, the previous generality applies. But they might just as well be growing in soil close to the tree in a very beneficial symbiotic way, sharing duties with the tree (e.g. they fix nitrogen and in return the trees give them sugars). Identification is of course useful to decide where they lie on the bad/bad sign/neutral/good sign spectrum. For fungi AT the base of a tree, the first thing to do (if the species isn't apparent) is to see if they are growing on the tree or around the tree; this is crucial for a prognosis.

That's got to be useful to the mycoboffins on Arbtalk. Personally they are so much better than me that I ususally sre requetsfor fungal ID, work out what I think it is, write it down on a post-it and wait for the right answer to come in. If I was on Pop Master, I'd have a 'One Year Out' t-shirt by now.

I'm pretty sure Sorbus International supply them, but manufacturer IML would have alist of stockists too.

The 'confusion' is here on Arbtalk, regular posts asking about whether individuals can move into surveying and what qualifications are needed. Cavanagh is nothing new, as I believe I said. Fundamentally rhe term 'tree surgeon' is a bullshit one, an illusion of grandeur for anyone that can buy a saw in B&Q. If the term was restricted and defined, we might be able to say wheter a tree surgeon is typically competent to do tree risk assessemnts. I am not using the term 'surveys', since as I have already said there is a vast difference between looking at trees for defects and making compentent decisions about what should be done about those defects. I prefer the term 'risk assessment', 'survey' means nothing really, and is dangerous in its ambiguity. Personally I feel NTSG was not necessary to address any of this, nor do I regularly refer to it as authoritative. But it does as I recall separate the roles of inspector, risk assessor and risk manager. Quite rightly too. I've nothing against people bettering themselves and getting into consultancy work. I did it, and in some respects my practical climbing and cutting experience which I top up regularly makes me better than the academic consultant. But suddenly declaring oneself to be a tree surveyor is like suddenly deciding you are a tree surgeon, a recipe for you or others getting hurt, sued, or playing a heinous part in denuding the landscape of trees unnecessarily. Getting away with it doesn't mean it's right. We don't disagree substantially, I just say there is no clear overlap of tree surgeons and competent inspectors. No need then to defend or debase either genus.

We'll never know....

It's looking a bit walnutty so far, but reallly need foliage shots. Maybe Juglans regia on Juglans nigra.

(Assuming you are in England) The exact wording of the law is "the cutting down, uprooting, topping or lopping of a tree, to the extent that such works are urgently necessary to remove an immediate risk of serious harm" is permitted. Note, if branches are in danger of falling off, that is not an excuse to cut the whole tree down. There needs to be - a. a defined extent, no more than necessary b. urgency and c. necessity, there being no other way to reduce the risk And if the Council doesn't get to see the tree beforehand, the onus is on the tree owner to justify the works retrospectively. That means at least photographic evidence, but as Paul has said, ideally an objective professional written assessment. If you think you have a vindictive TO, do this one properly as there could be an attempted prosecution. It might also be worth seeking compensation for property damage due to unreasonable past Council refusal. This is covered in the legislation.

Thanks, all. I will wait to see if the leaves lose their downiness and-or develop a cuticle. Also flowers/fruit. Mental note made to follow this up here.

Couple of points of clarification that I think are relevant and may help onlookers on this subject. In the Cavanagh case, the judge said that that, "on the balance of probability, Mr Shepherd's inspection was carried out negligently". It did not say that this was because he was only a tree surgeon. I expect the court's perception of his competence was tainted by him having been considerably less than honest in his evidence. In the end he was lucky to have escaped because his negligence by fluke didn't affect the outcome of the case. But this case, although it didn't make any new law, was useful becasue it shows what courts do and don't look at in terms of inspector competence. And I didn't think any of it is inconsistent with the advice that I personally have given to the OP. kevinjohnsonmbe's post covers the various levels of competence of inspectors. And I see now the source of ongoing confusion about whether tree surgeons should be doing tree surveys. You don't need to be qualified to inspect trees, but if you find something that is an ordinary cause for concern, you need to be qualified in some way to make decisions about what to do, unless the appropriate action is screamingly obvious. But certainly my clients don't want to appoint an amateur and have him come back with recommendations that some of the trees he has looked at be checked properly by a professional. They want one person, overqualified to look for defects but qualified to know what to do when they find them. I think that a lot of 'tree surgeons' are good enough to identify defects but are rarely (in my direct experience) able to give objective proportionate advice on risk management. On the other hand, tree consultants are probably guilty of looking harder than they need to if there are no obvious defects. That's why unqualified tree surgeons shouldn't be doing tree surveys that are anything more than spotting obvious defects and passing these on to someone qualified. I believe tree owners want a one-stop-shop service that includes risk assessment competence and that it is as efficient in the end to have overkill on some of the trees for the beenfit of getting the full service on the few tree that need action. In my embittered opinion, there are a lot less trees needing action that way round, as (amongst other things) the consultant has no financial interest in whether tree works are required. A long post, I know, but I'm glad I've said it and I hope it helps someone get it.

This comes up about once a month on Arbtalk. Set the bravado of others aside and follow this bottom line. If you're not insured don't do it. And don't do it just because you have insurance, see what the limitations and pre-qualifications are in the insurance cover. It may say that you're not covered if you're not qualified. Insurers will take your money, and drop you like a stone if you claim and haven't complied with the policy. A bit like getting car insurance, not having a license and expecting them to pay up if you kill someone on the roads. A lot of expereinced tree surgeons are good at spotting tree defects, our lives depend on it. But there's a lot more to tree risk assessment than spotting defects. A lot lot more. A lot of reports I see are pure rubbish, the tree surgeon recommends unnecessary work, putting costs on the customer/client and causing unnecessary or premature loss of trees. Sometimes to get work, sometimes to cover their rear ends by erring on the ridiculously safe side, some out of pure ignorance. I have more than once (and that's just this month) overturned the recommendations of tree surgeons' reports, saving clients thousands of pounds. All backed not by me guaranteeing that the trees won't cause harm but by striking the right balance on their legal duty of care, giving them a credible defence in the event of the unforeseeable.

I feel I should know this one. Lower shoots hang down but the leaves are turned up. This tree/shrub has been heavily topped in the past (not me, honest!) and has goen a bit mad so I'm not sure what it's normal growth habit is. Any suggestions appreciated.