Kveldssanger

Sounds good to me. What I can think of: 1. When very young (ungulate browsing, trampling, lack of hardiness) 2. When stressed (salt damage, ground compaction, pollution, or other factor) 3. When injured (particularly from pruning wounds and crown snap-outs; if the cambium is fully exposed, there is more risk than if the phloem or periderm has suffered injury) 4. In very old age (post-mature trees have a lessened ability to put on new growth rings, have general reduced vigour, and respond less well to any sort of change) 5. When already ill (anthracnose in plane may weaken the host and leave it open to secondary infection, for example) 6. When honey fungus decides it's going to attack, either due to general pathogenicity, root contact with nearby infected trees, or some other reason I can't think of right now.

Define "low value". Are we talking economically, visually, personally, environmentally, ecologically? Someone thought they were worth preserving, so they were of at least some value to someone. Taking that into account, I did see a few TPO'd lawsons the other day. I was a little perplexed, though there may be greater context as to why they are TPOd.

I was thinking much the same... Absolutely. This would probably need to see guidance change, and planning officers accept the professional judgement of the TO as justification for such a preservation. If it went to appeal however, how would it fare? I have begun to, as an aside, leave standing stems from dead trees with natural fracture cuts, undertake veteranisation techniques on trees, and leave felled deadwood within hedgerows. Again however, this is met by some tree contractors with passive objection. When those within the industry don't even care / understand, what hope is there? Unfortunately, the end game is bleak. In fact, I'm not even sure there is an end game, until we have literally paved over everything. I await the day when it is declared we can now artificially pollinate crops and, as such, bees are surplus to requirements.

I think it's the lack of desire to prosecute as (1) "it's only a damn tree!"; (2) it costs a lot more than one could probably recoup or justify spending, both in man hours and in GBP and; (3) trees aren't as accessible as speeding, anti-social behavior, and speeding, in terms of either knowledge or general public awareness. I'm sure many people don't even know TPOs are a thing. I also know some simply don't care if a tree is even TPOd - it's being felled anyway. And when an LPA can't monitor or review it's TPO stock, how long would it take for someone to notice unless a vigilant member of the public informed the LPA?

I did rush this a little - been reading a book all day, so my brain was functioning like a car would when trying to pull away in third gear. If you can make a better set of questions, it'd be great to do (perhaps even a more formal) survey.

I can relate to the last part of your comment, in particular. It seems that the importance of clearly mature oaks does not rank highly on the 'to do' list. Trees in CA aren't so much of an issue where I work. I think some of the planners are aware of the need for safeguarding the trees within the CA.

At the same time, would one not expect for trees to be preserved in conjunction with development? What about urban woodland Orders - are they important? If urban infill is desired, how would one value the area Order for the woodland? To add to the discussions, taken from Trees and Towns II: A total of 96,342 individual TPOs were identified as currently being administered by those LAs that stated they administered some TPOs. This gave an average of 423 TPOs per LA. However, some 7% of the LAs had more than 1,000 TPOs each. The average number of new TPOs made by these LAs in the financial year 2003/04 was nearly 17. I wonder how it fares today... TiT2 is 10 years old now...

Here's a poll to vote on. In light of this comment chain in this thread, inspired by a comment at the recent Charles Mynors seminar where it was asked "are TPOs really worth it?", I am interested in the opinion of everyone here with regards to TPOs. Questions: 1. Is current TPO legislation necessary / appropriate? 2. Do you have confidence in the TPO system (from the serving of Orders to approval of works, and through to the overall administration by LPAs)? 3. How would you change the TPO system? (if at all) 4. If the TPO legislation were to be entirely removed, what do you think would happen to tree populations across the UK? I cannot think of any more questions, though by all means just post your thoughts. Hopefully a good discussion will ensue.

I shall make one. I absolutely agree with you on this point. The cynic in me, likely developed through mere observation of how people perceive trees when I talk with them during inspections, would expect trees to be felled more frequently and, initially, en masse, if TPOs were entirely rescinded with publicity. Unfortunately, I do not trust the general person to understand, nor care, about the longevity and retention of tree populations. Unfortunately, this is probably the case. Nothing has demonstrated, at least in my experience, people becoming more aware of tree importance. The only people that make noise about tree issues are those that already understand the benefits. We need to teach this stuff from a very young age by exposing our youth to the wonders of urban tree populations, woodlands and deep forests, if we are to see a marked improvement in how people perceive trees. Unfortunately the curriculum is too hell-bent on being a conveyor-belt system that throws kids in and churns them out as mindless drones, doing little to garner genuine progression. This was picked up on in the latest AA magazine in the Modern arboriculture - time to catch up? article by Jeremy Barrell. The industry is simply not treated with the weighting it needs to be treated with. I think two things are halting genuine progression - (1) ignorance and; (2) lack of accessibility. We need more people like Mattheck, using their unique (and frankly very engaging) methods of teaching people about tree science with silly little drawings and easily-understood text. Continued churning-out of (what should be critical) journal articles and texts that remain exclusively within the industry, almost as a let's congratulate ourselves for writing yet another scientific paper with impossibly complex words and phrases, need to be supported by clear-cut, short, succinct publications, that anyone can understand. The industry cannot invoke interest if it does little in the way of creating accessibility. You sum this up perfectly.

Just finished reading this book. Very, very good. Buy it! Easy to read, filled with wonderful close-ups of wood under the microscope at different stages of decay, and generally digestible in one sitting. A no-brainer purchase.

It may be to do with the fact the current manager of the entire section was an arb' officer. It's good to know the manager understands the critical nature of our role for the authority. And yes, another survey would be good. How would one go about acquiring such data?

To add to the discussion, do you consider that, if TPOs were to be entirely abolished, a different method of safeguarding would be necessary?

That's great to hear. I have tried pretty hard to get a GIS device to at least map TPO'd trees and do a proper inventory, though have been basically sidelined by the departments that can actually assist. I even had some meeting with GIS companies, though to no avail. I mapped around 4,500 trees by pen and paper, then took it to our software system and wrote down co-ordinates in a spreadsheet. I have decided that's no longer efficient, as I'm not even 10% of the way through. Absolutely. For instance, I looked at some trees yesterday. Lawson cypress, not even that large, all TPO'd. Bizarre... This rings true!

You're welcome. Up again next week for the Glynn Percival talk. May see some of you there.

I'm happy to review, as long as there's no devious motive involved, or a bid to then usurp my judgement. We have three arb' officers, though our jobs also involve contract monitoring of other grounds contracts. Not 100% arb', now. It is unfortunate that arb' officers aren't seen as essential in some LAs. Simply highlights the level of ignorance of the industry by laymen, frankly. Hah!

I did put this thread up the day it was posted by Barcham. It just booked out that fast...

Legally, I'd be required to do A. Ideally, I'd do B. If reducing branches back in a linear fashion detracts from the amenity value of the tree significantly, or makes the tree structurally questionable, what then happens? I would therefore prefer a TPO application to always come in, as an extra level of safeguarding against shoddy works.

Absolutely was. Was talking to Stephanie at lunch. Very clever woman - clearly cares a lot about what she does, which is always important. I think Charles hinted she may help him with the next edition of his book. I can't say I felt the same way. His views are what one would expect, as you suggest. In a manner of speaking, I consider his views to align with a sort of pragmatism when it comes to trees management. Interesting... I believe the law needs to take the well-being of the tree into account more readly, but for the most part yes I agree with this remark. It's always good to pool together differing views and realign or redefine yours in response, or at least broaden your own horizons of thought. Frankly we need them. Urban environments are sterile, carrying capacities of urban ecosystems are pretty piss poor, and the general level of respect for trees is rather low when it comes to the layman having his light blocked out by a mature oak. I am trying to, though finding the time is another thing...

I do however feel TPOs are critical and, really, they should be ecologically-driven as well as amenity-driven. We need more TPOs on our urban trees.

Keep that one quiet with the residents, I'd say!

This was worth it. Recommend it to anyone who has the chance to see him speak in the future.

Haha! Will have a chat with a colleague and determine if we are to do anything. The stem overhangs a moderately well-used footpath by the entrance to the park.

Saw this today whilst out in a local park. Not only can we see the old bracket on the underside of this main limb, though we can also observe a huge canker and the beginnings of a new bracket forming atop the same stem. Pardon the darkness - was pointing a potato up at the sky to take these photos. So here we see the specimen. A sizable ash; certainly dominant in the local landscape. Note the arrow points to the limb in question. Here we can observe the desiccated bracket on the underside of the limb. And again! And the bright orange (take my word for it) growth now emerging atop the same stem. The lower arrow points to the old bracket. And the canker. Again the lower arrow points to the old bracket from last year. And in its glory... And all three. You'll really have to take my word for it, sadly. Top to bottom : canker, new growth, old growth. I consider the pruning wounds, evident in some of the photos (such as the last) are the potential cause of this decay. Likely alongside historic storm damage, too (perhaps the third picture shows storm damage that has been remedied somewhat).

I had suspected it was P. squamosus. Thanks for confirming.

Hi guys, Stone dead poplar. Brackets with a distinct stalk. Seem pure white atop, a yellowy-brown beneath. In the first pic you can see one stalk forming and, below, a very new bracket emerging (currently the size of a pingpong ball!).