10 Bears

I would say it is definitely at the altruistic end of the scale. Amongst other things, I am involved with an academic group at Lancaster University who have secured UK research council funding to develop ways of preemptively identifying potential *risk* trees, using techniques such as remote sensing and GIS. As this research money comes from a publicly funded body (NERC), all outputs from the project are essentially, publicly owned. The other partners are BlueSky, ADAS and potentially some utilities companies (discussions ongoing). Should there be a tangible output (although there are no plans to make a 'product') such as a licenced methodology or software or WHY, then the partners who inject cash into the research end of the project will get a royalty-free licence to use the 'product' within their businesses. However, like I said, there is no intention to have a product like that, as a lot of the focus of this project is to provide a detailed proof of concept that could be used to guide further research in this area going forward - so yes, ultimately, for the further benefit of the wider industry. The press releases are merely to generate some interest in the project and to disseminate the ideas that we have to the interested trade and the wider public. So, I would say there are no personal/business gains to be had for anyone at this stage, other than for the researchers who are working on individual doctorates or post-docs in this area. I hope that covers any concerns you may have, but let me know if you want any more details and I will give you as much info as I am able.

Arbtalkers - I need your help. I am involved in a multi-partner project where we are identifying and developing models for predictive visualisation of tree failure with a view to encouraging more effective tree management. A portion of this project focuses on drawing attention to the models we develop and in general, to tree failure as an issue for a wider audience perspective. This process includes periodic press releases, within which we would like to include some good images of tree failure. Whilst we have a few pictures of failed trees, we could really use a few more, particularly in high quality (HQ). A example of the *type* of images we are looking for are as follows: http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/picture-forum/66232-storm-pictures-put-them-here-27.html#post1062242 http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/picture-forum/66232-storm-pictures-put-them-here-14.html#post1017192 http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/picture-forum/66232-storm-pictures-put-them-here-14.html#post1019823 basically, where there is a 'dramatic' tree failure and it affects people or infrastructure. The first of these press releases is to be issued to trade publications, and shortly afterwards, there will be a press release discussing the partnership. The publications we are looking at would be those with an interest in GIS / Mapping / Environment / Forestry / Arboriculture as well as those publications with an interest in technology for Utilities / Transport / Infrastructure etc. Typically the publications pick and choose a combination of the supplied material with the press release, so any images you offer may or may not appear if the publishers choose to publish it (which of course, they may not). Ideally we would use HQ images ( the ones from the forum are a bit grainy when zoomed/stretched), so if anyone has any images they are happy for us to use from their collection, and the images are HQ, then please send them to me for potential use. We would of course need to have full publication rights (I will arrange a form that will need to be signed off), and should you want an image credit, then please let me know when you send the image and you will be credited at publication if your image is used. So, in the first instance, could you please post your images here in this thread and I will let you know if it fits with the project and then we can take the next steps. Many thanks for your help.

Job done... Many thanks Rick - excellent work.

Its already been said - absolutely compelling story. Thanks for sharing.

and then of course there is this guide... http://www.trees.org.uk/Trees.org.uk/files/80/80ec79ab-0eb6-42d3-aa18-90c7f51105fd.pdf

Take a look at this document, it contains some useful information that may help you: http://www.barrelltreecare.co.uk/pdfs/BT06-ReportWriting.pdf In terms of PI - yes this would be the exact situation that it is for, ie to indemnify your written (or verbal) recommendations. Of course you still need PL to work on someone elses land (imagine if they tripped over your clipboard!), but I'm sure you have this in any case. The issue with this kind of work, is that you will have to have your PI insurance now, and maintain it for 7 years after your report as essentially, if you get it wrong, claims could be made against you at some point in the future. Just worth considering. Now, I don't believe that folk absolutely must have a qualification for every part of their work as proven experience in a certain area is legally acceptable, but personally, I did go on the arboricultural mortgage and insurers users group (AMIUG) course so I was more familiar with completing this type of work. I'm not sure who runs this course at the moment. Just be mindful in your report that you dont stray outside of your area of expertise i.e. only comment on the trees/subsidence/soils, and not discuss factors outside of your area e.g. extent of cracks/potential of the building to withstand problems etc. Although similar - discussing the building directly is not what you should get into as you are not a structural/building surveyor. So, presuming you have some experience writing reports, are PI insured (as you say), have knowledge/experience/quals of trees and such like, I would presume you are fine to take it on.

Sure, no problem. Here is another resource that should pretty much have all the answers you need (use the hyperlinks on the left): Climate change impacts and adaptation in England's woodlands (Forest Research)

Yes, I know SULE is not in the BS - I just prefer the acronym over ERLE or ERC. In my mind though, they all fundamentally mean the same thing. Its a little like saying the "world wide web" is phonetically easier to say over "WWW" - sorry, couldn't think of a better example! Didn't mean to add a layer of confusion for the OP...

It looks like a trophy to be proud of winning, so well done for your efforts and skill. It does make me think it should be given to the winner of a swimming gala though, due to the man front crawling through the waves... Art is all in the eye of the observer!

I would say the key to the interpretation is whether the SULE or estimated remaining life expectancy (ERLE - not as catchy as SULE), is the >20 year mark or not. The CAT C trees specifically state, "trees of low quality", and whilst this is a subjective measure, it could be used to frame your classification with a little more weighting ie if it is low quality, do you expect it to outlast 20 years? This should help you decide which classification is the most suitable in the circumstances.

Just a couple of pointers: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/eng-trees-and-climate-change.pdf/$FILE/eng-trees-and-climate-change.pdf http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/FCRN201.pdf/$FILE/FCRN201.pdf The Forestry Commission and Forest Research are always good places to start for information like this. I will try to respond again when I have more time...

That's very insightful Kevin, and TBH, you are absolutely spot on with the comments regarding my not agreeing with the logic, but passively with the motive. I suppose I have taken affront to the fact the TO justified their decision by (publicly) stating I have applied BS5837 incorrectly and my justifications/evidence are not robust enough. I suppose I will have to let my ego ride that one out! In this case I won't go down the PO route as a simple redraw of the maps, however I don't agree with the justifications, will resolve the issue. Locally, there has been a significant split in terms of the folk who are for, and others being strictly against it, so there has been plenty of local press, and many voices heard. I have acted appropriately, impartially, and in the circumstances, in the best interests of the trees affected by the development - however I feel the TO is just playing the game at my expense and trying to deflect any potential/future bad press should all this go ahead. Well, a lesson learnt. So to get back to the OP - yes I show RPAs on my TPP!

I have just had further response from the TO regarding my situation and the supposed improper RPAs. In short, they will not back down over the requirement that the RPA (in the site circumstance) absolutely has to be an eccentric polygon. It has become clear to me that the justification for this is purely to claw an extra few inches for the protection of the trees. While I applaud the intention, I still feel that this is a misinterpretation of the situation (or ignoring the evidence?) by the TO. Just for a matter of interest, I also posed the question to the TO, do I really need to show RPAs on the TPP, even with a protective fence-line and annotated offsets showing on the plan? and in short, I have received back a quite direct - 'yes'. So, it seems that in my case the TO has their own interpretation of the regulations and how to apply them. At least now with this bit of extra insight on their interpretation, I will be able to produce work in line with their individual expectations (irrespective of what BS5837:2012 actually says).

Grey Headed Kite.... (I think!)

Great Horned Owl....

I was also at a falconry show on Sunday, amazing to see the birds flying within touching distance (in fact the Harris skimmed my head more than once). Some pictures below... Harris Hawk......

I assume this will be of interest to some. There is a nesting pair of Osprey back at Foulshaw Moss Nature Reserve at Mill Side, Cumbria, and they have an excellent web cam on the nest to capture all the action. The link to the cam is here The pair are both locals to Foulshaw as they were both hatched in Cumbria, so its good to see them returning from their annual trip out to Africa to raise another brood. No signs of laying as yet, but there should be a batch as they were caught in flagrante delicto just the other day...

Ed, I think you may be right, but at the same time, it may be open to interpretation, hence these little problems with TOs... Para 4.6.2 says you should initially "plot" a circle based on the centre of the stem, or if its asymmetric to produce "a polygon of equivalent area". Now reading that one way could just mean while you are calculating the RPAs - do this for your own understanding of where they are, but I assume that as many TOs (IME) still want to see RPAs on the map, that they are interpreting 'plot' and 'produce' as literal statements. Just for interest concerning my situation described above, my TPP also has the offsets on it, but I tend to use exact structures eg corner of a wall or access cover, rather then those funnily shaped wooden pole things. I think it makes the measurement/establishment of the fence line less open to interpretation. Also, I include in a grid, the RPA values for each tree on that area of the map, as an added layer of information so my calculations can be double checked if needed. Alas, in my recent case, it seems my efforts have gone to the wall in any case!

I suppose, yes, it is more advantageous for the developer to have the RPAs as circles and not polygons - but I don't think that is the problem here. I have calculated the RPAs on the basis of what is correct for the site and genuinely have not considered the developers POV in my decision. I think the real issue is that the TO has not properly considered the evidence on site, and tried to hinder the development as much as possible - just like your situation as described above. This is a third stage planning application and there as been quite a bit of bad blood locally over the issue - it has certainly caused a rift and most folk are steadfastly either for or against the development. I suppose the TO is just trying to cover their backs as much as possible in light of the associated bad press with the development - but I object in principle that they publicly state that I have incorrectly applied BS5837 - whereas I believe that the roles are reversed and the TO as the wrong end of the stick as they have not properly considered all likelihood of where the roots actually are. They have just used a blanket, there is a structure (no matter how minor) so it must be impeding the roots. Actually, I think if the TO did their homework, they would find that minor structural works, as in this case, can provide safe passage for roots - similar to 'structural soils' where the gaps and pores in the UG structure actually protect the roots. I've not heard anything back, so I guess we will have to have a difference of opinion, and I just redraw the RPAs...

This very morning I have received an email regarding the BS5837 work I have done in relation to a development that is still being considered. My TPP included the RPAs - however, the TO is adamant I have misinterpreted 5837 in relation to the RPAs. On one side of a wall, is a large field area (former cricket field), and on the other side, is a minor unadopted road with a foundation depth of around 25cm. The TO objects to my view that the trees between the road and the wall/field will in fact be rooting beneath the road, and as such I have drawn the RPAs in a circle. Despite the fact that there is a massive amount of porous surface, letting in soil-air/moisture exchange, an insignificant amount of sub-soiling work in relation to the road, and absolutely no evidence of surface rooting from the trees next to the road area - all indicating that the roots will be under the road in my opinion, the TO still suggests that my RPAs are incorrect, and they want me to apply them as an offset polygon. TBH, I will just redraw the maps if they are immovable, but I have responded and invited further comment in light of my evidence based observations as above, which I feel the TO has not considered properly. Perhaps I should have left the RPAs off the map then?...

What is just out of the edge of the cartoon is the long line of local 'porters', carrying the expedition kit, who they send over the bridge first...

I have had a combination of both golfers and tennis elbow for over 20 years. My physio just said, "Well, we can't fix everything" - and wouldn't do or advise any treatment which I thought was a little uncaring to be honest! A bit of research on has turned up that there are two approches to use. Either ice it, or heat it, combined with rest and all the usual. Last week I started icing for 15 minutes twice a day, as I invested in these ( and have them on right now in fact): [ame=http://www.amazon.co.uk/TWINPACK-Reusable-Shoulder-Injury-Compress/dp/B00IJYLDSC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1460380498&sr=8-1&keywords=TWINPACK%3A+Large+Reusable+Hot+Cold+Pack+Ice+Gel+Heat+Pad+%7C+Back+Knee+Shoulder]TWINPACK: Large Reusable Hot Cold Pack Ice Gel Heat Pad | Back Knee Shoulder Ankle Injury | Compress Strap Sleeve Wrap: Amazon.co.uk: Health & Personal Care@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/4116MOzq3EL.@@AMEPARAM@@4116MOzq3EL[/ame] Although in such a short time, the pain is not gone, but I certainly feel like it is lessening. I'm sure its not just a my imagination or a placebo effect. The idea of heating the area is to increase blood flow to the aggravated tendons, but to my mind, they are inflamed so icing was my preferred route.

They look like Tubex, and yes, they are meant to be degradable, although it does take some time and if left unmanaged like in your picture, they can be an eyesore. Is this land anything to do with you? Could you organise a 'friends of... group' to arrange a bit of a tidy up?

Purely from memory as I've not used my CAD in a while, you can use the inbuilt shapes ie circle, to draw out your crown edge, right click and write in the exact radius you want to use and the crown edge/circle will be drawn to the exact size. It works the same with the ellipse option but instead you enter 2 axis. This approach is fine if you are only plotting a few trees as you state.

Stephen - not sure of your age obviously, but if you cant drive - learn to, but if you have a post 1997 licence - get lessons for use of a trailer and van if necessary. I have known chaps try to get work without driving licences before and its just unrealistic. Being able to tow is a good addition if you are putting yourself about for work.