daltontrees

A good example of fasciation on Sycamore, going a bit mental this week in Glasgow. After the initial fasciated rapid extension had settled down, the cluster appears to be behaving according to the normal rules of tropism and apical dominance.

Then the spec should say this. e.g. "reduce crown by between 1 and 2 metres, cutting to suitable growth points to accord with BS 3998, to produce an average reduction of 1.5 metres, resulting in a final crown height of X to (X+1) metres and width of Y to (Y+1) metres". Contractor can understand it, Council can check it, and it gives legitimate scope to choose suitable positions for final cut. Time taken to draft wording, 4 minutes, including correcting typos.

I'm not taking sides at all, but I can see that the original spec posted on here should result in pretty much what the COuncil said here. If some Councils accept specs that are vague that's up to them but they really oughtn't to. And there are reasons for that. By not giving a reason for the tree works the application is invalid at law (Reg 13(1)©(iii) 2012). But the vague extent of the reduction together with the considerable crown lift means thatif it was a 2m reduction the total extent of pruning takes this way over the 30% guidance (Clause 7.5 BS3998) and the crown lift looks to exceed the 15% guidance (Clasue 7.6). Doesn't mean that such drastic measures aren't justified in some cases, but the Council has to have the info to decide on that. Better specs make for quicker decisions and reduced likelihood of refusal, and build trust between Councils and contractors/consultants, which suits everyone. Writing a vague spec takes 2 minutes, writing a good one takes 3 minutes. Delays caused by vague ones can run to weeks or even months. Why take a chance unless you're gambling on getting a vague consent and then abusing the leeway? Not you Mr. OP, I am talking in generalities to encourage a better standing for our industry.

Someone asked this same question on Arbtalk a couple of months ago. If you search you might fnd the thread.

I was on a loop yesterday. I found a bit of fasciated sycamore at the start of the day and I had Keep Feeling Fasciation, almost by Human League [ame] [/ame] , going on and on for 8 hours. Cound be worse, some days the last thing you hear onthe radio os some pop pap that yoyu hate but its so catchy it sticks in your head no matter what you do.

It's the internet age, everyone hopes to be able to get everything for nothing. Your videos, by the way, are the best I've seen. Informative, quirky, fun and entertaining. But do tell, when you strap a camera to a piece and then freefall it 20 metres or so, how many cameras do you wreck? And how did you manage to take 4 tops out simultaneously or was there video trickery involved?

It suggests to me that the only way that most people would be out of buildings in weather likely to cause tree failures is in a car. Cars give people a sense of security, which is all very valid except they are not much protection from falling trees. Plus you can't see what's above you when in a car. Plus in USA a lot of people wouldn't walk the length of themselves before considering taking the car instead. Especially in poor weather. Street trees have less than 50% chance of landing on a street.

Good point.

Not much use to consultants, that. Also AA doesn't cover forestry, arboriculture is predominantly about amenity trees, differentiating it from timber production (silviculture). So, Amenity Tree Contractors and Consultants Association? Or how about Arb Association?

Such cynicism! It was done by the AA in-house and apparntly cost nothing.

I'm so confused now. That 2015 thread is definitely cherry. The bark looks like P. serotina, which I have seen pictured with this kind of horned bud, but not as red as that. But serotina flowers in racemes.

I don't envy you this. Pleasing all of the people all of the time will always be impossible and, having had my whinge, I trust your judgement to get it as near right as it can be.

My guess is Sorbus americana.

I like Arbtalk a lot and changing it for chaging sake is in my personal view not particularly pressing, unless it's just a catch-up with current technology. But this questions/answers/voting thing, having just looked at Yahoo Answers for the first and almost certainly last time in my life is too trashy for words. Will it encourage witty and eloquent answers? Yes, probably. will it encourage right answers, not necessarily. Will it improve the standing of arboriculture in the minds of the public and encourage best practice within the industry? I know what I think. In the top 10 yahoo answers today Do Christians understand that Allah and God are the same? Is five too young to let my kid watch the walking dead? Would you marry a man who watches porn? Do you like 80's music? and the best one of all - Why would anyone struggle with depression when God can fix it? I got depressed one day and so I prayed and God made it go away? (24 answers!) Just what Arbtalk needs (not!) Tread lightly, Steve. Coincidentally i heard that the AA is going to put a forum on its revamped website. Maybe worth an enquiry as to overlaps?

I chucked a desk job and took up tree work in my 40s, best thing I ever did. Lost 1 12/ stone, was fitter than when I was 25, and I don't remember ever thinking I wish I hadn't done that. I love being up a tree at 8.30 and watching all the suckers commuting to some battery-hen office while I get ready to be paid for climbing trees, having crack with the guys, messing about with machinery, getting loads of fresh air, loads of exercise and being engaged with nature. Downside is it beats the hell out of you on the wrong side of 50, but plan C (consultancy) is pannig out beautifully.

Please remember I was responding to a specific question namely "So, if the neighbour wants to keep the tree, the development proposal can't be approved?". The thread was started by someone asking about plotting RPAs but as these things go it has drifted in to a general discussion about whether the development should proceed. I was just saying to Kevin that development needn't be prohibited just because a neighbur wants to keep a tree. What would a developer do then? If the tree is not already protected, he could sever the roots to the boundary. Then apply for consent. But say he didn't and the Council refused consent because it valued the tree and thought it would be lost if development was authorised. So What would a developer do then? Sever the roots to the boundary, and then re-apply? This was part of the rationale for me saying "Council'd probably have to TPO the trees." Back to that survey, then. If the OP reported that the volume of soil required for the ongoing vitality of the trees on the embankment had no significant element under and beyond the retaining wall, would a Council question that? Would they prod, scan or airspade the site to disprove the surveyor? Rhetorical questions, but for what it's worth personally based on the photographs I'd be suggesting to the developer that the subsurface constraints on the car park side are minimal. But you've raised an interesting point about off-site conditions (an age-old issue in Planning) but when I think about it trees don't quite behave like other structures and in view of the position on abatement of encroachment I can't see how they can be protected by off-site conditions alone. The consent could be granted with conditions to protect the trees then their owner could just chop them down because the conditions are not binding on him.

I mean can it be used across a strong break in slope like that surely at some point it will not be scanning directly perpendicular to the ground, it will be covering a wedge of ground. See attached. Area A is OK and so is B, but what information can you get for area C, D and E?

Sorry to be a killjoy but that's probably an automatic LOLER failure unless the manufacturer has desinged and certified the harness as being suitable for adaptation in that way. That's not to say you couldn't do it but you'll have nowhere to hide if something goes wrong. Whatever you do don't attach a bridge to the side Ds. It'll drive you nuts if you ever use a wire strop a tthe same time. Actually that doesn't leave any attachment points. The Petzl datasheet for the Avao Sit Fast says modifications are prohibited.

I was thinking more of showing that there are plenty of roots on the other side. Back to the OP, I think the objective is to demonstrate that an asymmetric RPA is appropriate. Can GPR even be used on steep AND level ground?

Air spade sounds OK occsionally, but if it's just a 5837 survey and TCP the onus surely isn't on the developer or surveyor to prove where the roots are? Isnt it just necessary to have sound arb reasons to expect rooting to be non-circular and to portray the RPA accordingly? I don't have the BS handy to give the exact wording, but I'm sure you don't have to prove it. Air spade was (along with ground-penetrating radar) what I was thinking of as being the luxury of a lottery-winner.

Not really a derail. In my case the piling was the only option due to depth and site contamination. But it raises a fair point, could piling be used as a legiyimate way of minimising the likelihood of root damage? Clearlyt hrere would be no point in doing this if a building is going to be put up, but ground beams between piles could work in some situations where only a wall is to be built. I've done something akin to it on a very small scale, basically stopping a foundation on either side of a root, then building up brickwork and building in a RC lintel at ground level and then building the wall as normal on top of it. And back tot eh original posting, I xpect there's no benefit in this sort of way of thinking there because (a) there'll be sod all beneficial rooting in teh car park and (b) there's much more likely and better rooting to be protected on the other side.

I was the developer on a site in the highlands of scotland, we drove piles to 9 metres. About 50 of them. Inside an existing building. You wonder if you're ever going to hit anything solid. It's an expensive open-ended business. But statistically low chance of hitting a major root with a pile.

If the developer has not secured rights to work offsite, there is no new threat to the tree from development. So th development could be approved. But more generally, it can't be assumed that the Council would look for these trees to be retained. At this stage the 5837 survey might just be needed to inform the designers and planners. It's rare and arguably wrong for conditions of consent to relate to things on ground not within the appication site anyway. Council'd probably have to TPO the trees.

This comes up againa and again, especially on UKTC. There is a borad consensus that there is no hard scientific evidence about rooting distribution in situations like this. 5837ers seem a little obsessed with avoiding damage to roots, but what 5837 really says is that you need to establish what volume of soil is needed for teh ongoing vitality of a tree. SO it's as important to establish where it will get support, nutrints, water etc. as where it gets the m from at present. Now obviously if all the roots are on one side and the only soli that will be available after developmentis on the other side, it would be nuts to sever allt the roots and expect the tree to move into the soil. So initially matching the future requirement to the current distribution is of fundamental importance. I'd say if that wall is of any sort of age the three will not be deriving significant benefit from material under the car park but will be deriving important tensile support on that side. The rooting distribution will probably be in all other respects strongly asymmetrical downslope and if so that's the area to safeguard for water and nutrients. If you can get a hold of Tree Roots in the Built Environment, it will ask every question you would eventually ask yourself, but not for want of trying the authors will leave you realising that there is no proof. Without a lottery win to squander on investigations anyway.

I can never rely on the 3 wraps method to be right. Try the one shown on this video, it's less prone (for me) to go wrong but for you you'll see you can pull the bioght out as long as you want before tucking and setting the knot. There's an even easier way to tie it, but it's not so good with mits on. You can cow hitch the ring to the bight, no need to passs the bight back through the knot. Or use a steel screwgate through the bight.