Chris at eden

If it is Phytophthora then I would think it is more likely to be P. citricola or P. cactorum. They are documented on lime. You can get exudates from Honey Fungus also, just a thought. Cheers

I would imagine they did but the developers have ignored it. I saw one site where they stored the materials inside the tree protection barriers so it didn't get stolen. That's what the site manager said when I asked, I was there to monitor!!! Its not uncommon.

Out of interest folks, is there much interest in this type of course from tree surgeons. I have a teaching qualification on top of my arb stuff so I have been considering running some training courses. ISA would be a good starting point I think. Not at the moment but in a couple of years, don't have the time at present. Would be good to get a read on it. Any feedback would be appreciated. Cheers

Yeah no probs. Try this: Training I did my tech cert and L6 dip, plus a load of short courses with them and would highly recommend. There are quite a few ex and current tree life students on this site so I'm sure others would recommend also. Its not listed on the website yet as they are only just starting to run it this year. They have a mailing list which is how I got to hear about it. Speak to Keely on 0116 2606939 or [email protected] Cheers and good luck

Not wishing to step on Paul's toes but Tree life are also running the ISA as supported study now. I think its about 6 sessions. Just in case the OP wants to get going sooner rather than later. Cheers

I did it during 2002. I read the book twice and did the little tests at the end of each section. Then sat the exam and passed - it wasn't difficult. To put it into perspective though, I had passed NC arb in 98 so it was just re-capping really. May take you a bit longer but if you have done HNC previously it should be well within your capabilities. The value of the ISA Cert Arb really comes from completing the CEUs once you have passed. In my opinion anyway. Good luck Cheers

I would agree, I would go with Eastern due to the upturned needles.

I would take great pleasure in telling him he is an idiot. I've enforced old TPOs with misidentified trees. I've also had legal departments refuse to enforce TPOs which were spot on for other reasons. When you present these issues to the council legal department they will look at what are called mitigating and aggravating factors. Its what John was referring to when he mentioned using it as a defence, i.e. wrong tree on the schedule, I didn't know, Its not my fault - mitigating factor. But what if the tree officer had sent you an email saying that the tree on the schedule marked as a Norway maple is actually a sycamore and that it was just a minor mistake. That he advised that the tree was still protected and made reference to a site meeting where he advised you of the same. These would be aggravating factors. It would be a good idea to vary but I doubt you would get far with the defence of its not got the correct name on the schedule. Anyway, its not misidentified. Its down as a deciduous tree which it is, and I suspect they will modify on confirmation to include the species. I cant really see a problem with that. Cheers

I always include heads of terms for the AMS at the end of the AIA, the standard specifically says you should. Even if I don't think it needs one, I will make the point that not needed but if the council insists then the following issues shall be addressed.

Yes I agree but if the TO has any sense it will never come to that, they will modify the schedule on confirmation once they have had a chance to look at the tree in leaf. Mind you, its a bit of a shocker of they can't identify a Walnut during the winter!!!

You got no chance of getting that past the TOs at Shropshire County. You wont get far with the damage to the sewer approach.

Good advice from Jules here. The only thing I would add is that the impact assessment is the effect of the development on the trees and vice versa Also, realistically the AMS should come via condition. I know some LPAs ask for it upfront but this is not the correct approach in my view. Cheers

As previously stated there is no requirement to describe the tree with absolute accuracy on the plan or schedule. As long as it can be identified from the documents it should be ok. Even if the plan and schedule conflict the guidance accounts for this saying that the plan takes precedence. I suspect what they will do is modify the schedule on confirmation to state the species. As this doesn't have to be for 6 months they will be able to check the tree when in leaf and the confirm subject to a modified first schedule. Its not uncommon for trees to be misidentified on a TPO. Everyone comes across trees they don't know from time to time. Out of interest what is the tree? Cheers

I've still no idea what you mean by a root protection system? To me a root protection system is fencing or ground protection boards on a development site, or a no dig drive. Did you mean a root barrier? Kev, I wasn't suggesting that you would need to root prune before installing a root barrier. What I meant was that from what I remember (I would need to check) NHBC specifically state that root barriers are not recommended for mitigating existing subsidence from trees. New tree to keep roots away from the building yes. Root barriers are around about £1,000 per linear metre depending on depth. Speak with target fixings, they have a system called heli-pile which can be installed and tied into the existing footings as an alternative to underpinning. may be worth a look. All of this seems an unnecessary cost though if they haven't confirmed that the tree is the cause. The tree is undoubtedly close enough to cause subsidence but only if conditions are right. Even then they should have some type of monitoring to check the movement is seasonal. In reality though they are thinking it will cost 20 times as much to underpin or install a root barrier than it will to fell the tree.

Have they done any crack or level monitoring? Soils testing? What are the other issues you mention? What do you mean by root protection? Root barrier? NHBC doesn't recommend the use of root barriers to abate subsidence so that's probably a non-starter if it is tree related.

Thanks both.

Is there a JPEG that can be downloaded or do you cut screen shot and trim in paint? Cheers

Kid, I would have still been up for that at 28.

Jenga extreme!!!

OK, the engineering operation is a long shot but it does happen. Not saying it would go anywhere but if the LPA wanted to be awkward it could certainly delay matters. In terms of a solution to dropping the level there may well be but it would need to be looked at properly, not under the radar in my view. I think Jules covered the TPO contravention bit so nothing to add. PD rights are probably in place as long as not in a CA but that would be just a guess, so my advice would be check first. I know a couple of sites where PD rights have been lifted because they are in the AONB. Not a CA. As for max five years, this is not so. Standard conditions are 5 years but I know more than one site where the conditions have been applied for the life of the development. For example garages built with a condition limiting their use to just that for the life of the development. I know of a protected conifer hedge with a life time condition as it forms part of a bat mitigation programme. Every time the owners want to prune it they need to apply to planning. Its not common but it does happen. I'm all for getting things in order first and then telling the TO what you will be doing. Cheers

I think you may both possibly be on dodgy ground. How do you get the no dig drive down to meet the highway level when you consider that the RPA probably meets the highway. I think you need to grade down and that may require TPO consent. Otherwise, you may have a steep ramp onto the new drive, pretty unsightly. The LPA will know as soon as you start work so I wouldn't go under the radar. There are other considerations. What if the PD rights have been removed from the property say by a long standing condition? What if the planner comes out to look and says that the change in level is an engineering operation and therefore requires consent? I've seen this happen and its can stop works half way through.

There is no such thing as a heavy pollard, that would be topping. Generally not good for trees but some will regenerate, e.g. lime and plane.

You don't need planning consent as long as the drive is porous otherwise yes you would. You may find the use of cellweb problematic though. The cell itself will need to be at least 100mm to support a car and so by the time you have the wearing and binder course on you may end up with a 150mm level change. How do you get that down to meet the road/drive without digging. If you dig then you may be cutting tree roots so consent required for that. If you are digging for fence posts then it would be worth putting in a TPO app to prune small roots (<25mm), and you will need to be flexible with the post positions in case you find a large root. Speak with the tree officer to agree a way forward. He / she may want a basic method statement to support the application for digging within the RPA and possibly options for the drive.

That's a bit of a conundrum alright as if you discharged the reserved matters the requirement for a felling licence would be superseded by full planning. The smaller stuff will be exempt (<80mm @1.3m) so couldn't you just get away with cutting access tracks to test and survey and then clear fell as part of planning? You could then just keep below the five cube. If you did it at the end of March and let it run over into April you could span two 1/4s and therefore remove 10 cube. As long as you are not selling it that is. Cheers