Chris at eden

I always wonder about that. That problem with statistics is that they can be manipulated to give a false impression. If they are saying that they get approval for all their projects I don't see it but then again I don't see that as my issue. If the application is validated based on my AIA being acceptable then I consider that a success. If the client has ignored my advice and it is then refused I don't see that as my issue either. If its a none starter I tell them. If I can work something up I do. I had one recently with about 50 trees the majority of which were cat C and U. Self set stuff mostly. There were about 10 B cat trees so I advised them to stay away with the design. They ignored my advice so the app requires the removal of all trees. I then wrote up the AIA objectively saying that the impact of tree losses is high (for the B cat) and explained that there is no point in saying otherwise as the TO will see straight through it. They accepted this and paid the fee with no issue. It isn't my job to get them planning permission. I give them advice on feasibility and point them in the right direction. The rest is up to them.

Yes it went with the 2005 standard and it was 20%. Mainly because consultants were offsetting into areas where there would clearly be no roots. Now its at the discretion of the consultant and TO but I see no reason why you cannot encroach slightly as long as you can justify it based on site conditions. Some LPA's are more open to this than other in my experience.

Ahhhh, I think I see where you are coming from. Are you saying that if an impact is identified which could be resolved by off setting you could amend at the AMS stage? That is pretty much what I did in the example I gave, so yes I agree. Although I did it at the AIA stage and didn't refer to it as offsetting. I thought you were talking about the required modifications such as to reflect the position of roads, buildings, level changes, etc. My mistake. Cheers for clarifying. I've seen so many plans where the RPA's are plotted 10m into the footprint of an existing house.

You can't modify the RPA at the method statement stage. The RPA is a constraint so should be used to determine the layout. It not the same as the offset rule either. Its designed to reflect onsite restrictions such as roads. I.e. you don't get roots under roads. If you changed the RPA at the method statement stage that would most likely be after consent had been given. Not to mention you may not need an AMS. The LPA won't allow this. When you submit the AIA to the LPA the plan that should accompany is a draft tpp. Not the TCP, that is for the design team. No offence intended.

I had one passed recently by Birmingham City Council when a proposed extension was cutting into just over 10% of the RPA. I didn't even bother to offset, i just sold it to the LPA that such a small area incursion would not be an issue as on the opposite side was a public open space which would be a better rooting environment. I also advised that the foudations within the RPA must be dug by hand and under supervision. No roots over 25mm to be severed, trech lined to protect roots from concrete, etc. The tree is a mature oak with a TPO, and is located on the council open space. I would not have tried the same approach if the opposite side was an engineered highway as i doubt i would have got away with it and i dont like getting negative comments back. Plus it would be unprofessional which i dont like either. Horses for courses.

5 cube per calender quarter, but you cant sell more than 2. Thats the felling licence others have mentioned.

They blush red if you press the pore surface, hence the name. I have read other reasons for the name though.

The paper is called straightening out the askanazy curve, i think it was in an isa journal. You should be able to get it from google. There is a really good site with all the old isa papers. Anything older than a year i think.

Looks right. Press it, see what happens.

Pruning in the winter is a traditional approach but I'm not convinced its correct one. Most of the common decay fungi fruit in the autumn meaning that spores are at an all-time low during the summer months. There are exceptions. If it’s hot and dry that doesn't favour fungal development either. And the trees are actively growing meaning they can perform CODIT as they have not only the potential energy within their tissues but also an abundant re-supply of kinetic energy produced through photosynthesis. The production of reaction zones through tylosis, etc requires energy, something that deciduous trees don’t make in the winter. If they are expected to draw on their potential/stored energy through the winter it would reduce the mass/energy ratio which is needed to kick start growth in the spring. That wouldn’t be a great survival strategy hence they do nowt and start to react only when growth kicks in next year. I don’t really think it makes a huge amount of difference, just small margins really. How many tree surgeons only prune for 6 months of the year! The Askanazy curve is also accepted when people say don’t prune before the leaves come out. This is based on Askanazy testing starch levels in trees before leaf burst when he found them to be low. Problem is, he only checked cherry trees. It’s not surprising their energy is low as they flower before they leaf. That uses up energy which cannot be replaced before the leaves are out. Yet still people advise this. Again how many trees have you pruned before the leaves come out and what was the effect? Not much in my experience.

Oyster fungus

I thought of another. Beech has a heavily suberized barrier zone (not all trees do) which makes it very difficult for organisms to cross. One of the problems with using micro drills to investigate is that it breaches the barrier zone and its suberin defence. Timing of pruning. Trees have a reduced phenol index during their dormant season meaning that wound response is minimal during the winter. Tylosis is also temperature dependent and does not occur at very low temperatures. Reaction zones may not form at all in some species at very low temperatures. The list goes on!!!

Another consideration is the different ways in which heartwood or sapwood prevent decay. Heartwood contains phenolic compounds which give it its colour and prevent decay as they are extremely toxic to micro organisms. Example would be oak. Generally only specialist organisms such as chicken of the woods can decay heartwood as they have developed strategies to do so though evolution. If you cut a branch and expose heartwood its defence stays in place so they are resistant to most decay organisms. There are exception obviously. On the other hand trees with only sapwood (e.g. birch) rely on the wood being filled with water to prevent decay. Decay fungi require oxygen to respire so are kept in check while vessels are filled with water. Prune a branch off a birch and the vessels dry out. They can then decay as the defence has gone. In fact, fungi such as Piptoporus are believed to be latent colonisers in that the sit within the water filled vessels in a dormant state waiting for the right conditions. Once the vessels dry the spores can develop. Another good example of sapwood vs. heartwood is in old woodland oaks. If you look at the very old dead branches all that remains is the central core of durable heartwood with the less durable other area of sapwood decayed and fallen away.

I sent a picture to forest research like this a few years ago when sudden oak death first arrived and it was the next big bad. They advised that it wouldn't be SOD or its Cornish cousin unless there were infected Rhodos or Viburnum near by. They thought more likely at the time that it may be P. cactorum or citricola which I admit at the time I didn't know they affected beech.

It would take a very long time to occlude a wound of that size and once it has the position may be worse. Jeremy Barrell has been writing some interesting articles about summer branch drop and how it may be linked to large occluded wounds. You often get decay develop unseen once occluded. I did an aerial inspection of a mature oak last summer which had a tiny hole in the centre of a wound wood doughnut. When I checked with a cane it went in over a metre before my probe ran out. Another consideration with removing a limb of that size is the effect it may have on the way that the tree deals with wind loading through mass damping. It must be a sizable branch so its removal must alter the way the remaining parts move. If they aren't optimised to deal with this you may get secondary failures. Additional pruning may therefore be required.

I know, that's what I mean by woolly. Mine says L3 also but I landed a job which required an L5 qualification a few years ago with TC. The industry has always given TC more credit than other L3's such as National Diploma. I've done both and they are not the same level, nowhere near. I've just finished L6 and I would recommend this route to anyone, especially with the new way of assessment. Lot of work but well worth it.

Yes it is although a bit woolly. The L4 is a direct replacement so the old TC is now L4 by default I think.

The post nominal for tech cert is Tech Cert (ArborA), not to be confused with TechArborA which is technician membership of the AA.

Yes mate. They dont do it anymore. Not much demand so it didn't justify the cost for support apparently. There is a company called pear technology do one but its just over £700. That's the cheapest I have found.

I would second that, I also completed L6 this year as well as doing the old tech cert and PTI with them about 8 years ago. Top training provider. Congrats on the PTI.

Not a good approach in my opinion. At some point you have to e-mail the pics to the TO so why not do it 5 days before you do the work. That way when the locals phone to complain, which they will, the council will know all about it and can just say 'its fine, the tree is dead'. Doing it retrospectively not only does not comply with the legislation but will also mean the TO has to drop everything and drive out to see what is happening and then deal with the fall out from the residents. Its not the way to build a relationship with the council. If you gain the TO's trust by playing ball things tend to go more smoothly in the future. Retrospective notices should be for emergency work only.

No worries mate, its a good debate. My view would be that the tree had been destroyed in terms of its visual amenity by having the crown removed with no chance of re-gen to replace as future amenity. Remember destroying a tree in TPO terms is more about visuals than obliterating the tree. I dont think you could condition it but the TO would be pretty stupid to process it as an application. If it was me, i would write back saying i accept your application as your 5 day written exemption notice and that you could proceed. I would then say that as the amenity of the tree had been destroyed by the works, you are required to replace in accordance with 206 blah blah blah. I dont know of anyone testing it so i could be wrong but i've been through a few planning appeals and i dont thinks the inspector would support an appeal against a TRN in this instance. Its just not the intention of the legislation in my opionion.

I take it you haven't done the assignment on tree protection legislation yet, its a good one. Domestic gardens are on land designated as residential, no FC interest. If its greenbelt or even an industrial estate, you need a felling licence.

I agree, badgers are protected by separate legislation and I don't see what is exceptional about trees or badgers in the Greenbelt. Its not really appropriate to have woodland TPO's within domestic gardens either.

Nice idea but you would still have to replace it I think. The LPA could not condition it, but section 206 requires that trees are replaced if they have been removed, uprooted or destroyed either in contravention, or because they are dead or present an immediate risk of serious harm. The LPA could argue that the tree had been destroyed in the interests of amenity by the works to stabilise its condition. You could try ignoring it and appealing the TRN but I doubt the PINS inspector would have much sympathy.