Kveldssanger

Aye, my standard assignments with my BSc were 2-3k, and my dissertation was 10k. Part of me hopes there is no limit for the QCF Lvl 4 Arb Diploma. So much to write about... got notepad documents filled to the brim with notes and references.

Is there a word limit on the assignments?! 5-7k words sounds right up my street (seriously). Hahahah.

It's easy to locate a legit copy of the 3998:2010 online. Not that I'll say any more than that.

Doing mine with TreeLife this Sept'. The Lvl 4. The Lvl 6 is probably too much at the deep end unless you really know your stuff. The Lvl 4 is about right for me, having looked at the spec. I have a BSc in Environmental Conservation, so the Lvl 4 was arguably my entry point. I presume that, assuming you pay (!), they won't not let you do the course you want to do (though may encourage you to do otherwise, perhaps). The Lvl 4 could be a ten week course if you crammed it all in. It's panned out over an academic year usually, however.

That BS has been up for a while now. Funnily enough someone posted it on the AA facebook page. Don't think it was ever removed.

It sure does. It's right next to a property, though am keen to have it retained forevermore, frankly. Was just a thought with regards to the panic fruiting. No doubt it has been within the tree for a long time, looking at how much ribbing that wound has done. My guess is the limb got torn off during construction of the buildings 40-50 years ago and resulted in such wound formation.

Couple shots of L. sulphureus on an old oak wound. Panic fruiting out of the entry wound perhaps? May be well compartmentalised. Images too large to paste here. http://i.imgur.com/7TdUTsa.jpg http://i.imgur.com/401P4kg.jpg http://i.imgur.com/7uHrwlb.jpg

5% of total soil volume added should be biochar, according to Glynn Percival yesterday. No more than that, else it actually mucks things up more than if you didn't even apply it.

Now that's a point to consider.

Most (if not all) TOs that I have met genuinely care.

Should be good!

It wasn't that bad. In talks with Gary over working out some sort of survey to do with TPOs. Would certainly be nice to get something tangible in hand.

Aspartame in diet coke will be a killer for profits when the health effects really start hitting home. Pardon the pun...

I would avoid coca-cola, or any such type of drink. They're not particularly great for you at the best of times.

The issue that arises here is that LAs are looking to sell-off their land for development, or to private house-owners who want to buy land and are ready to pay large sums for it. As I have stated, the issue with planting schemes is they don't tend to work that well. Developers seem to neglect the trees once they are planted, and at times leave bare-rooted stock in a shed for months on end. Property friendly species? Come on now, we can't have a monoculture of Prunus x subhirtella or Chamaecyparis lawsoniana now, can we! I consider it very foolish to assume laymen will (1) know what's best and (2) do what's best. Why must nature fit our needs? Why can't we fit its needs? The constant need to skew everything for our short-term, amenity-based, practicality-based benefit astounds me, quite frankly. As an side, I have no qualms, in theory, with looking after privately-owned, TPOd trees, in response to the suggestion that TPOd trees on private land should be maintained by LAs.

But aftercare is never a planning condition. Further, one must ask why the trees fail. Is it because the trees are pre-destined to fail anyway, or because of poor adherence to BS5837, a general lack of care by developers, and over-zealous clearance of surrounding scrub that obliterates the root zones of trees that are to be retained. I visited a site recently where retained oaks and pears had been (1) damaged within their crown / on their trunk, (2) had large anchorage roots absolutely smashed and, to top it all off (3) would be situated within 2m of the entrance road. How would one expect such trees to feasibly survive? The system is as fault for trees not surviving.

One hectare of trees produces enough oxygen for ~40 (normal) people per year. As for felling because of the risk of a TPO being served, it's a possibility. Perhaps the legislation is draconian, though would it work any other way? Would people really care that much about the silly tree in their rear garden?

Glad you appreciate the discussion. Hopefully this topic really does take off. As for making a poll via the website, I now know! Agreed. I'd like to see more pre-emptive TPO'ing, rather than in response to a threat (sometimes it's too late as the tree is gone before you can even react!). I also think, at times, there is an inherent bias to permit works, and a certain lack of follow-up inspections on approved works. As I stated above, I much agree. As for the comment about developers, I again am in agreement. How could one ensure developers truly care less for their bottom line and more for the environment however, without including Tree Preservation within the National Planning Policy Framework as a mainstay of the document, as well as introducing legislation to (unfortunately) force developers to retain a certain percentage of trees. I have TEMPO'd stuff proactively, though it has never gained much traction beyond me. Lethargy? Maybe. Lack of time? Definitely. Absolutely. If budgets allow!

Procurement rules mean a tendering process is usually involved, which may not occur until a specific tender 'contract' has ended. Usually they last for five years, at least to my experience, and take a long time to sort. I don't think it's as easy as simply getting added to the books any more.

Sure thing.

I'd like to think my involvement with future adoptions would be of use for sites in terms of stocking them up with trees, though unfortunately it seems developers offer an almost 'take it or leave it' situation. The last one I looked at had woeful maintenance - heck, a cherry was still staked, a good five or six years after it was probably planted. By this point the top had snapped out and it was practically dead. Don't get me started on all the red robins... I also had what will likely be a future S106 case late last year. A large area, with plenty of space for trees. I pushed for lots of planting of birch, rowan and gean, which is what they said they had. They turned around and said they could only plant the rowan as there wasn't enough space to plant everything else, as it'd all be "too near to the pathway". Absolute madness. I don't even think the rowan whips survived. Maybe when we (likely) take it over I'll vegetate the lot properly, with stuff I'm currently growing myself.

I had the same thought, if I'm honest. If enough data can be acquired, a TiT2.5/3 could be initiated (at least to an extent). I have available all TO emails in Essex and, at least partially, East Anglia, so there's a start. Really, if we got LTOA, EATaLOG, and other regional groups involved, who could forward surveys to their members, such an undertaking could be more simple than first thought. Shoot me a PM if you want.

Doesn't sound all too professional. Always recommend at least three, I say.

As Charles Mynors said in his talk, we're all much closer in the UK (in terms of actual population density), so trees cause more issues as they block more light, get in the way more, can't grow to large sizes, etc. I imagine in places like France and Spain, people are more tolerant of trees simply because they are less densely populated.

The question doesn't suggest chronology. There are periods in my life when I am run down, stressed, or otherwise. Blame the question for being too open to interpretation.