Treeline, Winter 2012/3 by Ian McDermott

Treeline Winter 2012

Contents Bartlett Tree Research & Diagnostic Laboratory Because Pests and Disease are a growing problem

Editor’s

comment Welcome to the fourth edition for 2012. The last few weeks have seen a new Chief Executive at the Arboricultural Association, an Assistant Director at the ICF, and in October, Russell Ball handed over the baton of President to Alex Laver. Alex will introduce himself shortly. In this edition, Russell reviews the summer seminar hosted by the ISA and Gristwood & Toms. Steve Oram concludes his series on managing orchards and Rod Waterfield continues his series on the development of the Warren Woods. Paul Elcoat shares his thoughts on some of the challenges with running a business.

We are Bartlett Tree Research and Diagnostic Laboratory, with over 100 years of experience there isn’t a plant disease or insect pest we haven’t indentified, researched or managed. No matter the size or scope of your needs our diagnostic experts can identify and treat any pest or disease that threatens the health of your trees and shrubs. Every step of the way we bring a combination of local service, global resources, and state of the art scientific practices to make your landscape thrive.

B A RT L E T T S C I E N C E

Sudden Ash Dieback has been prominent in the news over recent weeks. We have a pictoral guide to this worrying disease, courtesy of the Forestry Commission. On a lighter note, Richard Nicholson, who has been busy working on the review of BS5837, explains some of the changes. He also shares about his journey in our ‘In The Spotlight’ feature. We also look at how a shire horse is enabling the Woodland Trust to manage some of its more challenging sites. There is much more. Indeed, we ran out of room for the review of the MTOA/ISA seminar held at Derby Arboretum in October, and the one held at G&T’s Shenley base in November. Both will be included in the spring 2013 edition. Russell Ball has given much to arboricultural during his term as President of the Chapter. The personal appreciation is a tribute to this individual who has become a friend to many in the industry. Enjoy.

4 President’s Pulpit 5 Profile: Alexander Laver 6 News: Lantra 8 News: City & Guilds & Thanks from TDAG

Features 10 Jubilee Parliament Tree Planting Red Windsor tree planted on Speaker’s Green

10 Birmingham Ride For Research October 2012

14 2012 Technical Seminar Series ISA (UK&I) & Gristwood & Toms review

17 Traditional Hores Logging A rare Suffolk Punch showed-off her timber hauling skills

18 Managing Orchards - Part Two By Steve Oram from the People’s Trust for Endangered Species

24 Are You A Company Director? what it means to be a director of a limited company

27 Arboriculture & Archaeology Clive Mayhew is bringing Arboriculture and Archaeology together at Highgate Wood

28 In The Spotlight: Richard Nicholson Richard has just concluded chairing the BS 5837 review

30 BS5837:2012, An Overview of the Changes

Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction, by Richard Nicholson

36 Tree Preservation Orders Some points to effective enforcement by Mark Chester

38 Ash Dieback Disease A pictoral guide from the Forestry Commission

Mark Chester

40 The Mulberry & the King By Mark Hinsley

42 The Woodland Skills Centre - Part Two PArt two of the series from Warren Woods

44 Russell Ball: An Appreciation Mark Chester gives thanks for Russell’s contribution

Disease & Insect Control | Pest & Disease Research | Product Trials

46 In My Opinion by Mark Chester

Soil Nutrient Analysis (Heavy Metals, salt) | Soil Compaction Analysis | Plant Identification

For the life of your trees.

Is experience more valuable than qualifications?

Prescription Fertilisation | Plant Health Testing | Phytophthora Testing | Scientific Advice

Head Office: enquiry@bartlettuk.com | 01444 892 900 Research Labs: research@bartlettuk.com | 0118 988 3032 2

By The Mistletoe League

48 Poem Mark Chester continues this series

Layout by Indesign www.indesignonline.co.uk Treeline Winter 2012

www.bartlett.com

Treeline Winter 2012

President’s Pulpit

Alexander Laver

So here I am sat wondering what to write in my first president’s pulpit. Which of the many subjects wishing and washing round my head after a cold day in icy drizzle, standing

much as we can to help educate out clients, colleges and friends. We need to be on the look out for people using the latest out break to scare monger profit from media led public. We need to follow the guide lines and not look at the big heap of potential fire wood sales and spread the problem even further.

pruning in a MEWP. If that’s not a recipe for a grumpy old man rant from the young fresh enthusiastic president, I don’t know what is.

ne of my constant battles in my own business day to day, is standards, quality and morals. They all cost money. More to the point they cost me, through turning work away when a client wants to top a tree, when a new start up tree surgeon wants to do the same job for less than half your quoted price and when the cash discount is mentioned. There are times when we can work with a client to negotiate a path to least resistance when they feel they are getting exceptions and goals fulfilled, having you there working on their tree and we go away knowing we have done our very best for the tree and client, for the long term. It’s a hard path to walk, when the targets for the week to meet all the overheads are falling short of the mark and food needs to be put on the table. But a good ethical code like the one all ISA certified Arborist sign up to, is worth more in long term business positioning and standing than short term cash gain, respect is hard one in this industry. And now with alien invaders reaching saws ready to rape and pillage their way through our native tree stock, as an industry we have got to be more morally stead fast than ever. We have only to look back at history to see how badly the majority of the industry handled the Dutch Elm problem, we have no Elms any more. We all need to sit up and take stock, we all need to learn as

Presently, there are a lot of changes effecting Arboriculture, some directly such as new qualifications for skills and some indirectly like the changes in budgets and structure of the HSE. The whole industry is going to need to work and pull together to safe guard our future. The HSE will be passing ownership of the AFAG good practice guides to industry dividing them in common, such as chain saw, forestry and Arb sector specific. We will need to separate ours from the forestry weighted format they are in at present, to make them more relevant to Arb and make them our own. I feel that we need to build stronger links with Horticulture, where common ground already exists. To move the industry forward, we need to simplify the black magic around health and safety. We need an Arboricultural industry more in tune with itself, more self sustaining, in control of its own rules and regulations and more consistently and effectively governed. From here we can start to command greater respect from the many other sectors and industries, that we all work with and for day to day, rather than just expecting the respect to be given. Well, there are my thoughts on where we are and where I feel we need to go. I look forward to my two years here as president, it is currently not a dull time to be an Arborist. Alexander Laver

Profile Alexander Laver Born in Ely, Cambridgeshire and where I spent my early life. At 18 I headed for the hills of the north to the lake district, Newton Rig college, to start a two year course in Game and Estate Management. Here I picked up a chainsaw for the first time and with three keen UK Loggers running the training at the college the foundations were laid. In the class room the old school forestry teaching of Mikie Whin, nurtured the seeds sowed in A level biology of tree knowledge.

or three years I worked on estates along the Eden Valley. A passing conversation with Dave Meredith, one of my chain saw instructors, gave me the opportunity to do an 8 week course, sponsored by a charity called Cumbrian Broadleaf’s. This was to learn all about the world of tree surgery. It was not just a practical course there was a lot of knowledge based learning, with tree law, biology and P&D. It was during this summer that the candidates on the course went on a day trip down to Birmingham to watch the ISA ITCC, the skill of the climbers from around the world was a real inspiration. Only a year later I was nervously taking part in my first TCC. For this I owe Dave a debt of thanks. The family of the ISA and tree world has stayed with me throughout my career, everyone and I mean everyone I have ever met is on a level. After a year subcontracting and working for a tree surgery company in Ambleside, subcontracting work came up at Carlisle City Council, this temporary work turned into four years progression, soon

Treeline Winter 2012

making charge hand and then Supervisor. In this time I got my ISA Certified Arborist and RFS certificate but office work so soon in my career did not suit, so I returned to East Anglia and the county of Norfolk. Here I put all my bad habits in a metal box and buried them in the garden and became an NPTC assessor. My life with ISA then became more intwined when I started to help more with chapter TCC’s, progressing through to becoming TCC chairman and then by default a chapter board member. From this I have become involved with all sorts of industry bodies and projects, including a seat on the HSE AFAG board, leading on working at height and recently the rebuild of the NOS. Following a progression through the ranks as a vice president and president elect my turn has now come to lead the chapter forward through this economic slump we are all feeling hard, to reinvigorate the volunteer spirt the chapter thrives on. As only together, can we build our chapter to be stronger.

Treeline Winter 2012

Industry Support Growing For New Training & Qualifications Lantra recently launched a brand new suite of forestry and arboriculture training and qualifications that are transforming the way operators access their Licence to Practice.

rofessional forestry and arboriculture training and qualifications are now available from one place, providing greater choice and flexibility for learners. Where people once had to deal with two organisations to obtain training and assessment, they can now obtain everything they need from Lantra. To ensure the qualifications meet the needs of operators, Lantra has been working with key industry partners including UPM Tilhill. The new training and qualifications reflect the latest standards and technical modifications, so that learners acquire the skills and knowledge needed to operate safely. The new Lantra Awards provision is delivered exclusively through a network of approved providers, instructors and assessors. Learners can be confident they are being trained and assessed by people who are highly qualified and experienced within the industry. Lantra is also providing high quality training materials to support learning.

Supported by industry UPM Tilhill is set to deliver the new Lantra Awards forestry and arboriculture training and qualifications as part of Lantra’s internal review of the developed standards. Martin Lennon, Skills Training Manager, UPM Tilhill, said: “As the UK’s leading forestry and harvesting company and one of the founder members of the Forest Industry Safety Accord (FISA), we are committed to embracing innovation and raising operational efficiency and safety standards across the industry. “We are delighted to be the first major forestry employer trialling these products to see how the new training and qualifications fit together in practice. I’m providing constructive feedback on the content and structure to ensure our operators are assessed appropriately both for the individual and wider industry need for competent workers.”

Get in touch to find your local quality assured training provider: W: www.lantra-awards.co.uk/new-forestry

Treeline Winter 2012

T: 02476 69 69 96

E: sales@lantra.co.uk

Treeline Winter 2012

TDAG Thanks Fund4Trees by Martin Kelly

The Trees And Design Action Group Thanks Fund4trees For Support For The Second PrintRun Of Trees In The Townscape – A Guide For Decision Makers

City & Guilds Sets The Industry Standard With A New Suite of Chainsaw Qualifications As the leading Awarding Organisation in vocational education, City & Guilds NPTC is introducing a brand new suite of qualifications in Chainsaw and Related Operations, bringing the current provision in line with updated industry requirements.

he new suite, to be launched in November, will enable candidates to choose from 27 different qualifications, all aligned to industry needs. They take into account recent changes to the National Occupational Standards (NOS), which better reflect the current requirements of learners, and employers in the Trees and Timber sector. The new qualifications will provide greater flexibility for candidates and offer a more structured and logical career progression. Suitable for all skill levels, candidates can now select qualifications suited to their specific developmental needs. All of the new City & Guilds NPTC Chainsaw suite of qualifications will continue to be offered as ‘Independent Assessment’, meaning that ‘an Independent Assessor’, who has not been involved in the training of the candidate, will carry out the assessment. Some of the new qualifications, however, can be awarded following a new assessment approach called ‘Integrated Assessment’. This means a qualified Trainer/Assessor, who has provided instruction to the candidate, can also carry out the assessment. This assessment takes place at intervals after each ‘period’ of training and the candidate must be informed when formal assessment is taking place and when it ends. To maintain the rigour of assessment,

Treeline Winter 2012

City & Guilds insist that the assessment must be a separate activity and cannot be carried out as part of the training activity. Speaking about the new suite, Jack Ward, CEO of City & Guilds Land Based Services said: ‘Candidates and employers can be assured these new qualifications are as rigorous and demanding, as those they replace. The new qualifications are not only better related to today’s working environment, but also maintain the highest standards of quality, whilst enabling a clear progression route. The existing City & Guilds qualifications, which are the industry standard will still be available for the next 6 months’.

rees in the Townscape was launched at a wellattended event at the Royal Geographical Society in June 2012. At the time our sponsorship budget limited the print version to a relatively small number of copies and it was intended that the document would then only be available as a free download on the TDAG website. Trees in the Townscape has had a very positive reception and further endorsements have been received since its launch. The printed document, in particular, has proved to be useful in promoting the 12 principles espoused and there has been a demand for further copies to be printed for wider dissemination to relevant decision makers, especially council leaders, CEOs and heads of planning. TDAG West Midlands and TDAG SouthWest are also planning launches for Trees in the Townscape for which the printed document will be a central feature.

As always, the TDAG membership responded very positively to a request for funds for the second print-run and TDAG was especially appreciative of the financial contribution made by the pro-active Fund4Trees with its Reading Ride for Research event in September as Trees in the Townscape provides a useful link across departments, sectors and professions to further the case for urban trees and also the case for urban tree research as part of the wider urban agenda. TDAG has a research working party and this will be contributing to analysing existing research on urban trees that is still relevant, research currently being undertaken and gaps in research to better inform the wider research agenda and also provide valuable guidance for the 2014 Urban Tree Research Conference to be chaired by Dr Mark Johnston and hosted by the ICF. Martin Kelly MA FLI FIHT FRSA Chair Trees and Design Action Group www.tdag.org.uk

City & Guilds NPTC has also written a new series of training support materials to provide both trainers and candidates with the essential information they require to gain the relevant qualifications. These will be available to download free of charge from www.nptc.org. uk Learners can access the new qualifications from City & Guilds approved centres. For additional information, please contact: www.nptc.org.uk information@cityandguilds.com Tel: 02476 857300

Treeline Winter 2012

The Jubilee Project, which has The Queen’s support and HRH The Princess Royal as Patron, aims to plant 6 million trees across the UK and involve millions of people in planting trees. Sue Holden, Woodland Trust Chief Executive said: “We are absolutely delighted that Mr Speaker has agreed to help start the autumn tree planting season by planting a Red Windsor and kick off the Trust’s challenge of planting the final 3 million trees. “Creating new woodland is extremely important and even more so as we await the Government’s response to the recommendations of the Independent Panel on Forestry including its call to increase woodland cover in England from 10 to 15%.”

“

...we await

the Government’s

A Parliament Tree Planting For The Jubilee Red Windsor Tree Planted On Speaker’s Green For Woodland Trust Project

response to the

recommendations of the Independent Panel on Forestry including its call to increase woodland cover in England from 10 to 15%

On 31 October, 2012, Rt. Hon John Bercow MP, Speaker of the House of Commons, planted a Red Windsor tree in Speaker’s Green to celebrate the Diamond Jubilee and the Woodland

Sue Holden continued: “Schools, communities, organisations and individuals have planted trees this year as a very special tribute to The Queen, but at the same time these trees are creating something living and lasting to hand on to future generations. It’s a great way to celebrate the Jubilee but also it’s a chance to make your mark on Britain’s future.” Mr Speaker said:”I am delighted to be planting this tree today to mark the Diamond Jubilee and Jubilee Woods project. The Woodland Trust’s Jubilee Woods project is a fine example of the enormous success of the Jubilee festivities in bringing people together to celebrate Her Majesty’s 60 years of dedication to public service.” Michael Ellis MP said: “As Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on The Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, I’m proud to help make it possible for the House of Commons to mark this historic start to the tree planting season and to the second half of the Jubilee Woods project’s planting.” The Trust has confirmed that 60 special Diamond Woods - each of at least 60 acres – will be planted across the UK From Stornoway in the Outer Hebrides to Truro at the tip of Cornwall - the UK’s landscape and local environments are about to be transformed by the creation of these 60 new large woodlands. There will be a Diamond Wood in every region of the UK, giving everyone the chance to create an environmental legacy in their area through helping to plant trees. Each Diamond Wood is more than 1.5 times the size of the grounds of Buckingham Palace. On top of these 60 large woods hundreds of smaller Jubilee Woods are also being created. The Woodland Trust has thousands of free Jubilee Tree packs available for communities and schools across the UK. For individuals there is a special range of individual Jubilee trees for gardens or pots available online. Sue Holden continued: “We can only make this exciting and ambitious project successful with everyone’s help. We want to give people the chance to plant trees this season and we’re appealing to individuals, communities, organisations and businesses, to help make this happen. Long since the champagne bubbles have faded from the thousands of street parties that took place during that historic jubilee weekend, these Diamond Woods will continue quietly growing, creating a natural and beautiful legacy to Her Majesty lasting hundreds of years.”

Trust’s Jubilee Woods Project.

Treeline Winter 2012

Birmingham Ride for Research (RfR) October 2012 A Review By Russell Ball The rock of this ride was Pete Wharton, who organised a picturesque thirty-five mile route through the leafy suburbs of Walsall and the famous ‘venetian’ canal system that threads its way through the heartland of Birmingham.

s usual, the ride risk assessment (RA) was carried out the day before. Pete, Mick Boddy and I left the Walsall Parks Depot – the start and finish point – to assess the complete route and record any potential ‘ride hazards’. Both Pete and Mick are sportive cyclists and ride bikes weighing in at just twenty grams! A cracking pace was set as we whizzed round the route and at times I struggled to keep up. However, a small victory was mine, as, nearing the ride’s end along a muddy rutted canal tow-path, they both fell off their thin tyred road bikes with Pete almost taking a canal dive! Settling into my bed later that night, my legs throbbed and ached. Roll on the next day I thought, the riders are in for a scenic - yet challenging - West Midlands tour, albeit at a more sedate pace! Ride day was dry but a swirling gusty wind had stirred to test everyone’s pedal power. Thankfully, much needed fuel was laid on by Lesley Adams in the form of scrummy fresh home-made ciabatta rolls and cinnamon buns. After the RA briefing and a few cups of tea, the fourteen strong RfR team set-off (including a group of three from Team Amey), bedecked in bright yellow RfR t-shirts. The first school, Whetstone Field Primary, was just around the corner and on arrival we ambled over to the planting site. We waited in anticipation to see the pupil’s expectant faces. Minutes later we were not to be disappointed as twenty-plus smiling children filed out and gathered round the prostrate Judas tree that was lying adjacent to its’ planting pit. Many riders seemed taken aback by the range of poems that had been produced for our visit. My unenviable job was to spark-up debate about the value of trees. Having now done a few rides, I’m appreciating how hard it is to judge how this will turn out. But one thing’s for sure, school kids are now well informed about such things and as Moray Simpson later added, this is very refreshing for ‘public-bashed stressed-out’ council tree officers. One pupil even knew where Anglesey was (Moray’s ‘home-town’) and duly received a prized RfR yellow t-shirt. After a lively debate, it was tree planting time. A flash of hands went up as pupils waited in line

Treeline Winter 2012

for their turn with a spade. We just stood back to see the back-filling done in minutes! After some joyful photos in beaming Walsall sunshine we departed for Maney Hill Primary School.

went to the pupil who correctly remembered the tree species we had just planted.

If you can imagine a mini leafy San Francisco with countless undulating roads, you’ve got it about right. This quiet scenic route tested the pedal power of many riders. But the real crunch-factor was the gusting wind that had whipped-up. At some points, it was necessary to cycle hard even downhill just to maintain a pedestrian pace! Consequently, the yellow ‘t-shirted’ string of riders, previously cycling in a close group, began to spread out. So as not to lose anyone, however, the front leading-pack would always wait and so was never far away. En-route was a jewel: Sutton park, which claims to be, the largest gated park in the UK. Once in the park, the topography levelled out and trees flanking the route provided an effective wind-break.

Hunger stirred and we left the school with the pupil’s cheers ringing in our ears, destined for lunch at the Birmingham Botanic Gardens. After a few miles on the road we turned into a park, rode alongside a large ‘Slimbridge’ boating-lake fully populated by wildlife, and headed for the Birmingham canals. This winding network, probably also unique in the UK, provided an obvious flat route for riders, punctuated with numerous bridges that posed sharp pace draining inclines and declines. Sitting on a bike, the low overhead bridges provided a challenge for some, notably the 6.5ft. high plus frame of Gareth Hare. Now riding in single file, the industrial heartland of Birmingham, mixed with new swanky flatted developments, could be appreciated either side of the canal: which with the returning gusty winds had rippling surface waves.

On arrival at Maney Hill Primary School, we were ushered into the staff-room for a welcome cup of tea and a respite from the wind. Lively banter between riders about their various cycling abilities sparked-up and filled the room. Bon ami was in no short supply. Even discussion about the RfR ride in Ireland planned for 2013 was high on the ‘agenda’. Once again, this time around a field maple, we waited for a small group of eco-project students who had recently installed a wildlife pond. As before, the pupil Q&A session centred on tree benefits, and I asked Tom Wilson (Barcham Trees) to estimate how high the tree would be in twenty years, when the pupils had had children of their own. An estimation was duly made with a stinger missile retort from one pupil who pipedup “I’m not going to have children”! Bang. This floored me! As Lesley later explained, such subjects should be approached ‘with caution’. Even at 50 years old, for me, every day is still a school day. This time back-filling spades were not immediately to hand so what did the pupils do? Backfill by hand! The glee of handling soil and getting grubby hands was clear for all to see. In a youngster’s modern-day 99% germ-free ‘Dettol’ world this is something to be valued! A prize RfR yellow t-shirt prize

Finishing this canal stretch, we emerged up on streetside at the new Birmingham Library for a brief photo opportunity, now a little shaken due to the tow-path cobble stones. Within a few miles we reached the Botanic Gardens for a well-earned packed-lunch provided by Acorn Environmental Management Group (AEMG) Ltd, and a brief tour from Simon Gulliver, the Curator. Refreshed and recharged, we mounted bikes again for a brief ride to the third and final school, Nelson Primary, to plant a red oak. Just a small school group again, but how they nearly blew me over with their resounding “Good afternoon and how are you?” welcome. The tree benefit Q&As went well but I fell at the final hurdle when a pupil responded that strawberries grow on trees. Arbutus flashed into my head, wires got crossed and I nodded in agreement… well I’ll be more prepared for that answer next time! Many young arms then assisted Keith Burgess to guide the oak into its hole and with a flurry of hands, the pit was backfilled to finish the job. This time the yellow RfR t-shirt was awarded to a chirpy young chap who’d had his birthday just days before. Job done, with all three school trees planted, we

headed back to base. To avoid the previous undulating backstreets, we rode along some busy Birmingham roads. What a contrast to the quiet canal towpaths we’d just ridden and that probably had never been fully experienced by the Brummies we were cycling past. We did have, however, a final stretch of quiet canal to ride before emerging a few miles later at the Longhorn Pub for a pint before the final hike back to base. For me, the ride met all expectations. As usual the school kids were the stars of the ride and let’s hope the planted trees live on as a lasting legacy of our pedalling-power efforts. Well done Riders one and all!! Many thanks again to Pete for a cracking route and for also organising the school tree planting ably assisted by Ian McDermott who took care of the Walsall tree planting. Mick Boddy’s ride organising efforts are also very much appreciated. Also thanks to Amey who took care of the tree planting in Birmingham. Lastly special thanks to AEMG Ltd and Capita Symonds for respectively sponsoring the lunch and ride insurance. Last, but by no means least, thanks to Birmingham Botanic Gardens for being our lunch hosts. And as with every RfR event, thanks to Barchams for supplying the planted trees. Russell Ball Fund4Trees fund4trees.org.uk

Riders Lesley Adams (Symbiosis) Russell Ball (Arbol EuroConsulting) Keith Burgess (Amey) Jonathan Mills (Capita Symonds) Ian McDermott (Walsall Council) Ellen Tune (Amey) Tom Wilson (Barcham Trees)

Mark Ashman (Hill-Fort Tree Care) Mick Boddy (Symbiosis) Gareth Hare (Lichfield Council) Mark Postlethwaite (Amey) Moray Simpson (Wrexham Council) Peter Wharton (Wharton Arboriculture) Richard Wood (Birmingham City Council)

Treeline Winter 2012

To set the scene, Ted challenged the notion that the UK was forest-clad where ‘a squirrel could leap from tree to tree’. This, he argued, is nonsense: the landscape was mostly likely a wood-pasture (c.f. Windsor Great Park) grazed by animals which kept this open system managed and not by early settlers clearing trees with axes. The tree regeneration of these pastures was via thorny thickets which protected saplings from grazing. In fact, Jays played a vital role in oak distribution. Referring to slides showing sycamore, Ted said that this tree should be called ‘Celtic Maple’ as it is a native tree.

Expressing disappointment, Ted concluded that the Ancient Tree Hunt (http://www.ancient-tree-hunt.org. uk/) has had little input from ‘us arbs’. This is despite the fact that its key data can be used to make a sound (European) case to better manage these valuable, unique trees. We are the custodians of these trees and they are being lost year on year. Why? he challenged us!

In his trademark probing way to challenge ‘us arbs’, as he called the audience, he ran through an array of slides to illustrate his thinking on the techniques for managing old trees which he encouraged we should re-visit:

Martin began by explaining an interesting fact: ‘if only 0.5% of the monies spent on grey infrastructure was allocated to green infrastructure, this would increase the spend on the latter by 141%’. We were then treated to a slide-show showing international best-practice models from Stockholm, Chicago, Minneapolis, Portland and San Francisco, where space has been made for trees crucially below ground, and where they had successfully been used in storm-water projects and green roofs.

• Firstly, according to a 3,400 year old (axed fashioned) pollard-head pulled out of a Kent river, arboriculture is probably the oldest profession. • “Tree Hay”: leafy pollard stools harvested, bundled and dried for cattle. This is a valuable resource as the foliage is rich in mineral elements. This ancient practice is common-place in Spain and Turkey. Why is it chipped here in the UK? Ash stools are now being used to feed Exmoor ponies.

ISA (UK & Ireland Chapter) & Gristwood & Toms

2012 Technical Seminar Series By Russell Ball

• “Giraffe Pollards”: These high pollards were managed for ship and building timber. Frequently, scaffold limbs were trained and bent to produce large curved beams. Note that weight for weight, black poplar provides the strongest timber. • “Boundary Pollards”: used by landed gentry to permanently mark field boundaries. • “Shredding”: a common (pollarding-type) practice on the Continent carried out using an axe. The benefit of axing over chainsaws is that smaller cuts are made. Perhaps we’ll return to using axes one day? Normal practice is to leave a cauliflower branch cluster at the tree apex as a ‘sap riser’.

On 16th August 2012, Gristwood & Toms hosted the third in the series of technical seminars being run by the UK & Ireland Chapter. The event was organised by Russell Ball, Chapter President 2010-2012, and he reviewed the event for TreeLine.

ed Green was the first speaker. He is a founder member of the Ancient Tree Forum and Conservation Consultant to the Crown Estates at the Windsor Great Park. His title was ‘Ancient Trees and Tree Archaeology’.

Treeline Winter 2012

Ted began by explaining his first involvement with ancient trees, working at Burnham Beeches assisting the Estate Forester with problematic old beech pollards. This set up his career and led him to working with the Ancient Tree Forum.

• “Whiskery”: A technique with old beech pollards to encourage thin whispery epicormic growth within the pollard head. Ted finished his whistle-stop slide-show with images of “walking trees’ of hazel and birch where, previously, wind-blown trees had regenerated from branch unions along the fallen trunk leaving the root plate behind – by considerable distances in many cases.

Martin Gammie spoke next. He is the Design & Environment Team Leader (Shared) for the South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils. His presentation was titled ‘Look outside the tree pit - Sii the future’

Bringing us ‘back to earth’ he explained that in the UK the average street tree life-span is just 18 years: with annual failure rates for new trees at 25%. So why as a profession are we not delivering sustainable urban treescapes, the thrust of Sii? The cause, explained Martin, is that most council tree officers work in isolation within the workplace. We are good at talking to each other, much less so at spreading the message to non-tree officer colleagues. Tree officers should spend less time looking at trees and dialogue with allied council professionals to integrate trees into new hard landscape and engineering schemes. In effect, the focus should be on high quality urban treescapes with quality being considered over quantity. Martin then introduced the Tree Design Action Group as a unique group, rather than a formal organisation. This effectively brings allied professionals together to focus on the best-practice care of urban trees. The latest document is Tree in the Townscape: a guide for decision makers (http://www.tdag.org.uk/trees-in-the-townscape.html) Martin concluded that Sii requires multi-disciplinary input at the conception and design stage of urban development. This takes in to account the technical, procedural, organisational and financial opportunities and constraints that form part of any urban design initiative. A sustainable and compatible urban treescape requires trees to be ‘designed in’ and to achieve this, arboriculturists need to promote themselves as an integral part of this process.

Treeline Winter 2012

Traditional Practice of Horse-Logging Comes to the Faughan Valley

orse-logging is a traditional practice of removing felled timber from woodland using horses. This method is an alternative to using purpose-built machinery. It’s easy on the eye and, in some cases, can be more environmentally sensitive. The technique was demonstrated by Noel and Stephen Donaghy of Total Tree Care, with the help of their mighty assistant ‘Imogen’.

Sharon Hosegood was the third speaker. She is Managing Director of D F Clark Bionomique Ltd, and spoke on ‘Root Exploration by Tree Radar’. Her presentation included an outdoor demonstration. She was joined by Peter Barton, and explained their extensive experiences in using tree radar and air spades. A comparison was made between these two techniques explaining their advantages and disadvantages. With the air spade, risk assessments are required before their use. Any soil borne contaminates should be checked beforehand using soil maps. Access for vehicles & compresses must be considered and working areas may need zoning off. This technique can be time consuming but will give immediate results, although it will have limitations when working with heavy clays. The air injection will affect fine feeder roots but in small root-plate areas this should not be a problem.

It is good for exposing roots for pruning and root ID & utility installation are ideal for air spading. The Tree Radar is a non-invasive method, for use over smooth areas in all soil types. It is ideal for under hard-surfacing and depending on the software, scanning can get down to 3m, detecting roots of 20mm diameter, and greater. Alternatively, it can get down to 1m detecting roots 10mm and greater. It produces a top-down view and a virtual trench. Results can take a day or so to produce. Peter cited a Cornell University study where trees were grown in experimental plots. Their roots were plotted using tree radar and subsequently, the trees dug-up to assess the actual root-plate morphology. This was compared to the tree radar results and found to be 80-85% accurate. This was an interesting seminar. My thanks and appreciation to all the speakers, and especially to Gristwood & Toms for providing the venue and of course the fine lunch! Russell Ball ISA UK/I Chapter President 2010-2012

With funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund’s Landscape Partnerships, the Faughan Valley project aims to restore and enhance the Valley’s diverse natural and built heritage. Delivered by partners Derry City Council, the Rural Area Partnership in Derry (RAPID) and the Woodland Trust, the spotlight is currently on the natural landscape and the restoration of Planted Ancient Woodland Sites.

A magnificent mare was the centre of attention today (17 October) at Muff Glen Forest, a Forest Service woodland just outside Eglinton in County Londonderry. The gentle giant - a rare Suffolk Punch - showed-off her timber hauling skills as part of a demonstration organised by the Faughan Valley Landscape Partnership Scheme.

“Forest Service are to be acknowledged for their work in both restoring ancient woodland sites and protecting the features such as ancient trees that make these areas so special, and we appreciate the opportunity provided by them to demonstrate some restoration techniques to private landowners.” Imogen’s performance was followed by an Invasive Species Workshop, intended to raise landowners’ awareness of the harmful effects of, and the need to eradicate, species such as Japanese Knotweed, Rhododendron and Himalayan Balsam.

Michael Topping, the project officer, explains: “Ancient semi-natural woodland - that’s the small fragmented remnants of woodland that once covered most of the country - is a scare resource. Most ancient semi-natural woodland was converted into farmland before 1830. However some areas were converted into commercial forest plantations during the 20th century and these are known as ‘Plantations on Ancient Woodland Sites’.” According to the Woodland Trust, the gradual and careful restoration of ancient woods planted with nonnative conifers is vital for unique communities of plants and animals that are currently clinging to life. The selective thinning of conifers provides light and room for any surviving broadleaf trees and also reduces the impact of heavy shading on the woodland floor. Michael continues: “Our project offers comprehensive advice and funding to help landowners in the Faughan Valley restore those sites, as near as possible, to their former glory. And today we’re actually demonstrating the removal of felled conifers, including Western Hemlock, using good old-fashioned horse power.

Treeline Winter 2012

Managing Orchards & Fruit Trees Part 2 By Steve Oram, People’s Trust for Endangered Species In the autumn edition of TreeLine, we began looking at managing orchards and fruit trees, with specific to the individual tree and the orchard as a whole. In this second article, we look at the management of specific tree species, disease, and encouraging biodiversity.

Tree Shape

Apples, Pears, Medlar And Quince

The foremost consideration when managing a fruit tree is attaining the correct shape. Most non-fruit trees will naturally grow to a desired shape with little or no intervention, although they are often pruned to fit s required form. The same strategy can’t be applied to a tree that is expected to bear a good crop of harvestable and edible fruit. Left to grow to its’ own natural form, a hazel (i.e. cobnut) will grow 20 feet high and with most foliage being near the top, whilst an apple tree will become a bushy thicket of criss-crossing branches. Neither of these natural predispositions will promote good, reliable cropping, or ease of harvest. They will increase instances of pests and diseases, and can significantly reduce the life expectancy of the tree. It’s essential to shape the tree, ideally when young, into a suitable framework. Differences between species and situation are discussed below. They do produce an open structure that allows the most light to the most area of crown.

Known as the pome fruits, these are all similar in their requirements. Typically the ideal shape is a ‘Y’ profile. If there is excessive central growth this is normally because the central leader has been allowed to grow for years unchecked, it will be drawing most of the tree’s energy away from the laterals (see also part one: Structuring, Major Works). Leaving an open centre allows light to reach all parts of the tree, promotes the free flow of air to reduce disease, and keeps all the fruit hanging low for ease of harvest.

Treeline Winter 2012

Other forms of framework may be encountered in smaller or formal gardens such as cordon, espalier, and step-over. These are mostly intended for use with trees on dwarfing rootstocks. Other dwarf tree shapes are pyramid, central leader, spindle, and bush, but these are mostly confined to large-scale commercial plantations. Pruning these is a bit more

specialised, but it follows the same principles of renewal and maximum light penetration.

Stone Fruit: Cherry, Plum Family, Apricot & Peach

If a tree has been previously pruned to a framework structure, remedial work should aim to preserve this, but often the old scaffold boughs have outgrown their productive life, died back, or become so large as to be unsafe. Select suitable replacement branches either from the main trunk or a healthy well-placed lateral lower down the bough and remove the old growth. The consensus is that painting wounds with special formulas should be avoided. It has been suggested to help when working on younger trees in an orchard containing old specimens likely to be harbouring disease. However, healthy trees should be able to fend off infections – it is normally only unhealthy trees that succumb. It should be noted that even otherwise healthy trees can be temporarily stressed by heavy pruning, drought/water-logging or nutritional deficiency.

It is critical that stone fruits, those containing one large seed as in cherries and plums, are only worked in the spring and summer months. This is because they are vulnerabile to silver leaf fungus and bacterial canker. These diseases gain entrance through wounds and make their way down the branch. The infected branch can be removed (and destroyed) and bark infections can be cut away to clean, unstained wood. The spores are most abundant in the winter, so pruning in the spring or summer decreases potential for infection and allows the wound to heal more quickly. For the same reason, pruning cuts should be very clean and right up to the collar if possible to aid the healing process. To enable the tree to respond, large cuts should be avoided as it is harder for the tree to respond.

As discussed in part one, timing of works will affect the future growth in different ways. Summer pruning promotes fruiting as trees fruit best when the energy stored in the sap is balanced to volume of crown. Winter pruning, when all the energy is stored in the roots, will promote vigorous growth as the excess energy needs somewhere to go. A recent trend is to prune during blossom. This makes it easy to identify branches with good potential yields and also thins the fruit at the same time if cropping is too heavy, avoiding the problem of undersized fruit, which can happen as the tree shares resources amongst too many fruit. There can be a tendency for a younger tree to be planted and promptly forgotten, never receiving formative pruning. In this case the primary job will be remedial, shaping involving selection of the best candidates for the correct framework, dehorning, and removing lots of often large central dense growth. Neglected trees like these are difficult to sculpt into a satisfying form and take some perseverance to get them to sprout new growth in the desired location. As ever, try not to remove more than a quarter to a third of the crown during any one pruning session or across the season. Of the pomes, medlars require little work beyond formative pruning to the open centred profile described above and general maintenance to maintain the shape. They don’t like hard pruning and are unlikely to recover well, so more caution is advisable than with apples and pears, and formation pruning more important to get right. As medlars are tip-bearing, pruning ends of branches will remove the fruit buds.

The plums are a complicated group that include damsons, bullace, gages, myrobalan, cherry plum, and a number of intermediaries the relationships and origins of which are only now being better understood. They do, however, all have similar growth habits, and require little pruning beyond the formative cuts and then light maintenance. None of them withstand heavy pruning and anything more than tidying up dead, diseased, damaged, crossing and suckering shoots should be kept to damage limitation. Branches heavily in fruit are often shed entirely. Ideally these should instead be propped up, but this option often won’t be appropriate in a public space. If a major limb needs to be removed for whatever reason, it would be best to do it in May when the tree is better equipped to respond, and leave pruning at that for the year. Peaches only fruit on year-old wood, so special consideration needs to be taken to ensure that there is plenty of fresh growth from below the fruiting branch, which will be removed at the end of the season after harvest. Apricots fruit on 1-4 year old wood so can be treated more like apples and pears. They are less prone to the diseases that affect the other stone fruits, so can be winter or summer pruned. The fruiting branches need renewing more often for best results.

Cobnut Cobnuts and filberts, often referred to by the variety Kentish Cob, are varieties of hazel. These provide us with the large type of hazelnut sometimes seen at markets and grocers. Although once hugely popular, traditional styles of growing are rarely encountered. These are still grown in good numbers in and around the villages of Plaxtol and Ightham in Kent and their cultural importance is well established.

Treeline Winter 2012

The traditional growth form varies from place to place even around Kent. However, it is normally described as ‘goblet’ shaped. They will typically have 5-8 evenly placed branches radiating out from an 18 inch central trunk, but can appear to grow straight from the floor on particularly old stools. General maintenance pruning is done in spring when the catkins are in flower or about over. It involves the removal of suckers, renewal of fruiting branches, and vertically-growing branches, which should have been ‘brutted’ in the summer, leaving only flowering branches (appearing as tiny red filaments). Brutting is the practice of snapping the branch without removing it, about half way up, to check growth but not to stimulate replacement shoots. Where a main branch has died, a fresh sucker, known as a ‘wand’ or ‘rod’, can be selected and trained into place. These are held down to fix them at a 45° angle. Being a hazel, they can, of course, be coppiced right down to the ground if necessary and will respond with strong fresh growth. Long abandoned nut plats, as they’re known, can be mistaken for hazel coppice, so check the fruit for larger varieties than the native hazelnut and look for remnants of formal planting. Many abandoned plats exist, ready for the enthusiast to restore. More information about this fascinating fruit can be found at the Kentish Cobnut Association.

Walnut Advice on walnut maintenance is variable, but common to all sources is the certainty that work should never be done in late-winter through spring. The consensus is that pruning is best done from mid-summer to mid-winter, outside of which they bleed. Walnuts are known for their habit of self-pruning, dropping big branches without warning, resulting in unattractive broken ends, but a clean cut should heal well (see image). Pruning is not normally necessary, but for maximum production and control of spread, can be done biennially, or on alternate sides each year. Walnuts flower on the current year’s wood, so as much spring growth as possible will produce the best crops.

Mulberry Despite the familiarity of the term ‘mulberry bush’, Morus spp. are most definitely trees, but if the correct pruning is not done early in its life, it is likely to sprout several stems from the base, giving it a large bushlike appearance. This is risky to address once mature as the mulberry is prone to heavy bleeding leading to death, and severe pruning will probably kill the tree (see image). Because of this, only ever work on one in early to mid-winter; never prune a mulberry in the

spring or summer. As they age, they regularly take on a tilt and often fall over, but this doesn’t usually lead to the death of the tree as it will root wherever it touches the ground and grow on for many more years. This process can be aided by building up the soil around the fallen trunk. Branches should be stabilised with stout wooden props to slow the process down.

Biodiversity There has been a well-documented, massive and dire, loss of biodiversity witnessed over the last 50 – 100 years. By allowing trees to age gracefully and die naturally, we can contribute to the alleviation of this tragic situation. Ageing trees are arks of biodiversity. All too often a tree is condemned at the first sign of veteran features. I have read any number of tree reports written by arborists describing trees with, for example, early decay heart rot, as at the end of their useful lives. But it is due to their tendency to exhibit these features at a relatively young age that fruit trees in particular are noted for their biodiverse fauna and epiphytic flora. It might be 200 years before an oak has a hollowed trunk, but a mere 40 or 50 for an apple tree, even less for a plum.

A walnut healing well only 18 months after cutting

From the ancient woodland to ornamental street trees, every one of them can support millions of organisms in

This ancient mulberry died after a heavy pruning session. Major limbs were removed to stop it encroaching on a car park roadway, but instead the road should have been relocated to accommodate this lovely old specimen

Treeline Winter 2012

Old Bramleys are cordoned off in a public car park with chestnut paling, and dead wood left to rot down naturally

their lifetimes, from lichens, mosses and fungi to barn owls and dormice. An older tree nearing the end of its life will support many more organisms than a young healthy one, and in the case of fruit trees, the early onset of veteran features such as fissures and branch holes are not so much a sign of near-death as one of maturity and quite normal. The frequently encountered hollowed out trunks of ancient apples and pears is a natural process for a mature fruit tree and is believed to extend its life by reshaping the tree from a solid cylinder into a tube allowing a certain amount of lateral rotation which dissipates stress away from the roots, thereby reducing the likelihood of wind throw. Various fungal growths including brackets are quite likely to be living on dead or weak wood. Even those attacking live wood are a normal part of the cycle of life and constitute biodiversity in their own right; indeed some rare fungi only live on other specific fungal hosts. Like most parasites, fungi often require the host to survive so are self-regulating. If the tree appears to be otherwise sound, there is often no good reason to remove it on the basis of a fungal growth – just manage it and the tree could live for many more years. Canker, silver leaf, mildew and rust can all be removed or cut out down to clean wood if caught early enough. Exceptions of course exist, in

particular silver leaf, mentioned with regards to stone fruit, and honey fungus which can continue to feed on dead wood. This can quickly kill a tree and spread to other trees in the orchard, again though, mostly targeting old or unhealthy trees. There are a number of known varieties of honey fungus, some more vigorous than others. In the case of street trees, it often won’t be appropriate to retain an unstable tree, but even here there is much that can be done in preference to complete removal. Standing dead trees can be reduced to a safe framework and allowed to remain in situ, or stumps and roots left in the ground, with new plantings set to one side. In an age where even the countryside is overtidied, this creates an increasingly rare habitat for a number of years that will support thousands of insects providing forage for birds and bats, and nesting and roosting sites to boot. Typical of this over-tidying trend is the clear-up following the ‘87 and ’89 storms when millions of tonnes of wood were disposed of. This was in hindsight a terrible mistake, as this normal 100 year storm was a sadly missed bonanza for saproxylic flora and fauna such as stag beetles. If possible, rather than remove old limbs, prop them up and fence off the danger area (see image). If a suitable area exists, and the wood is not known to be diseased, leave large branches to rot down nearby. In an amenity orchard, park or garden where the trees are not managed for production, fallen trees with some roots still intact can be left in situ and will readily regenerate, putting down new roots where there is contact with the ground. The former trunk can become a perfect bench or playing feature and provides decaying wood habitat for many years. Mulberries almost always do this eventually. The first Bramley’s Seedling tree, from which every Bramley ever eaten originated, still lives on in a Nottinghamshire garden even though it fell over in a storm many years ago. It has grown into a new large tree still attached to the original trunk lying on the ground. Fruit trees have heritage and cultural value which should be recognised. When removing an old fruit tree, ask about the variety beforehand and notify the local orchard group to give them the opportunity to collect scions so they can propagate and identify it themselves. Many old varieties have been saved in the nick of time simply because someone chanced upon news of their removal and hurried round with a pair of secateurs, one example even being salvaged from the perimeter of a dying fire and successfully propagated!

Treeline Winter 2012

R U YO

W E N

E T I S B

E W ) I & K U ( N ISA O O

S G N I M O C

For more details, watch out for the monthly e-update.

BS 3998:2010 Tree work Recommendations A concise guide by Tree Life The guide is a concise version, it is not the intention to replace or replicate the full standard or the contents of the commentary and explanatory notes. The guide conveys in an A5 size handy booklet what should be done when working in accordance with BS3998 standard recommendations. Throughout the sections reference is provided to guide the reader to the relevant section in the full version. Improve your learning and understanding of tree work through better access and knowledge of the contents of a very important British document that provides recommendations and guidance for our arboricultural industry. The guide is printed on tear proof paper and bound in a wire comb to provide durability when taken out of the office. The booklet can be purchased from Tree Life AC Ltd at www.treelifeac.co.uk

Price: £35.00 Including Postage

Treeline Winter 2012

gift or a long service medal, it is a serious job with potentially serious consequences.

Are You a Company

Director?

I have clients and regularly meet new companies where the business owners have moved from

Any questions, comments or insults to Paul at paul@paulelcoat. co.uk or 07800 615 900

being a sole trader to being a limited company. Whilst they generally know their specialist area, the former business owner has little understanding of what they have done in setting up a limited

Directors Have Unlimited Personal Liability

company. In this article I shall explain what a limited company is, what it means to be the owner

If the company becomes insolvent, it is the fault of the directors. Directors are jointly and individually liable and so could be pursued as a group or individually by the insolvency lawyers acting for the creditors who have lost all of the money that they were owed. It is not uncommon for the lawyers to focus on the directors who have assets, even if the disaster was not their fault.

here I use the term ‘business’ I mean a sole trader type of enterprise and when I use the term ‘company’ I mean a limited company or in legal speak, an incorporated body. The transition from business to company is usually undertaken following advice from accountants that there can be tax advantages in certain situations or that being limited means that the liability of the owners is protected. There is more to this than meets the eye so read on. Think of the story of Dr Frankenstein and how he created a monster and gave it life. Starting a company can be a bit like that; the company you have created is your monster. Sometimes the monster does good things and makes a profit and sometimes it is bad and things go wrong. The owners of the company are referred to as ‘shareholders’ because they own shares in the entity – shares are often referred to as ‘stock’. This is different to the stock on the shelves in the storeroom. Typically the shareholders will own a small amount of stock so as to be able to pay dividends and the company will retain many other unallocated shares. A dividend is a payment to shareholders made by the company because it has made a profit. The directors agree if dividends are to be paid, the extent of the shareholder dividend and how much of the profit will

Directors control the company for an agreed fee and so they are responsible for everything that it does. If the monster runs amok and causes problems, the directors have unlimited personal liability for the consequences. I want to be clear about this…

of a limited company and more importantly, what it means to be a director of a limited company. Paul Elcoat and Elcoat Ltd specialise in helping contractors become certified, find and win contracts and become more efficient and profitable. He likes results and hates nonsense.

Let us discuss that rumour of limited liability; shareholders do indeed have a limited liability for anything that the company does; their liability is limited to the value of their shares so if they own £5 worth of stock, the worst that can happen is that their shares can be reduced in value to nothing.

Treeline Winter 2012

be retained by the company for further development. The shareholders appoint the best people they know to run the company for them and these people are known as the ‘directors’. In a small company, shareholders are often also the directors. They know best how to control the ‘monster’, which they may have helped to create. To a certain extent this will be fine but the old saying of ‘you don’t know what you don’t know’ applies. Directors are paid a salary or fees and do not receive dividends unless they are also shareholders. As a professional arborist, the shareholder/director will probably be good at arboriculture but it is equally likely they will be less skilled in running a company and worse than that, they may not even appreciate how little they don’t know about running a company. This obviously means that the ‘monster’ could be doing things which result in unidentified lower profit potential and unidentified increased likelihood of disaster. Sometimes the senior technician in the organisation has been ‘rewarded’ by being made a director. However, the chances are that the poor soul will have little appreciation of the implication of this means to themself or their family. Being a director is not a

As A Director You Have Unlimited Liability For Mistakes Made By Any Other Director In The Company If you are a foreman or manager who as been made a director of your employer’s company, in certain situations, you could loose everything you own to bail out someone else’s disaster.

As a director, can you think of any aspect of what your company is doing which is not adequately controlled and could potentially lead to a disaster? • You have read the memorandum and articles of association • You are included in all decisions and feel as though you are ‘one amongst equals’ in the meetings with the other directors • There are strict financial controls designed and supervised in order to ensure the liquidity of the company • There are procedures in place to strategically review the business environment • There are procedures in place to ensure continuation of work • There are procedures in place to ensure that the company understands its obligations to comply with the law:

o o o o

Company Law Employment Law Health and Safety Law Procurement Law

• Company undertakings have been thoroughly risk assessed • LOLER/PUWER checks are completed and recorded

In relation to health and safety incidents, let me introduce an abridged extract from the Health and Safety at Work Act (1974). This act contains the ‘first principles’ of health and safety law:

• Servicing and maintenance of all plant and equipment is done as per manufacturers recommendations

37 Offences By Bodies Corporate

• All hazardous substances are stored and transported correctly and there are current COSHH assessments displayed at the point of use

(1)Where an offence… committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. So, if the ‘monster’ caused harm with your consent or due to your connivance or neglect, you could be in big trouble.

• Operators are fully competent for everything that they are doing • Operators are equipped with all of the tools and PPE that they need and it is all checked and maintained regularly Obviously the above is just a list of the main points but if you are a director and your answer is ‘no’ or ‘I don’t know’, then you are negligent and you are gambling with everything you own. On the flip side,

Treeline Winter 2012

being a company director has its roots in a proud tradition dating back to 1844. It should be considered as ‘a calling’, ‘a profession’ and ‘a vocation’. Being a company director is a job in itself or in addition to your day to day duties. The role of being a company director needs to be learned and this learning process is about reflecting upon the roles and responsibilities that go along with the title and its functions and to develop not only the skills needed for the job but also the ability to change and adapt as circumstances alter, as they always will. To be an excellent director means being a learner and educator, and being a good steward of what is usually other people’s property, being trusted and being faithful to the objects of the company. This good stewardship needs application and understanding and it too has to be experienced and practised continually. Individual directors and the board of which they are a member have the responsibility for the future prosperity of the company, for the relationships the company should have with its stakeholders and, through its work, the contribution it can make to the overall health of society.

Here is my checklist for company directors: Directors are expected to… • Comply with the law, codes of practice and regulations • Act honestly and respect the truth • Apply company assets and resources for proper purpose

Arboriculture And Archaeology Is Coming To Town!

• Exercise powers for the benefit of the company not for self • Exercise independent judgement • Not gain a personal advantage from the position • Make decisions uninfluenced by personal share holding • Not to use the position to gain advantage for any associated person • Avoid conflicts of interest • Accept collective responsibility of the board You must develop the following characteristics… • Common sense – soundness and prudence • Courage – moral strength and principles • Diplomacy – tactful, calm debate • Intellect – ability to assimilate and weigh information • Tenacity – reasoned persistence and adherence to values • Wisdom – application of knowledge and experience, judgement You would not believe the business advantages that can be gained by being able to demonstrate ‘good governance’.

Following his series of woodland archaeology study days in Sussex last winter; Clive Mayhew is bringing Arboriculture and Archaeology together once more - only this time it’s at Highgate Wood in the heart of London.

he day will demonstrate that even within the most urban of landscapes archaeological features can remain hidden - and indeed protected - by trees, and that often those very trees can become archeological artifacts in their own right.

Question: How old are the features we’ll be looking at in Highgate Wood? a) 100 years? b) 200 years? c) 2000 years? The day will look at some of the archaeology you might expect to find in woodland; or areas that once were woodland; or areas that weren’t woodland when the archaeology arrived - but are now! These will include: Boundary banks and ditches Sunken tracks and pathways Saw pits Internal banks and ditches Braided tracks Charcoal platforms Quarries Working areas Dams Moated settlements Military activity Iron pits Pond bays Along with many other unknown / unidentified features.

At least half the day will be spent outside in the woodland identifying and discussing features, and by the end delegates will be able to: • Identify a range of woodland archaeological features. • Grasp the extent of archaeology that can be found in many woods. • Appreciate the fragile nature of much woodland archaeology. • Learn how such features can be protected. • Observe archaeology within living trees.

“A truly eye opening day - a real insight into the changing use of woodlands.” “I was shown landmarks in woodland I never knew existed.” “An excellent day. From now on I will look at woodlands in a different light.” The City of London has kindly offered to host these study days which will be held during March 2013. For more information, or to reserve a place contact: Clive Mayhew Phone: 01580 881092 or 07711673138. Email: clive@cmarb.co.uk Answer: a, b, and c.

Treeline Winter 2012

In the Spotlight

TPOs gained profile, and Richard ran a number of workshops for the AA looking at the requirements of reviews. Inspired by this, in 1996, he founded his own teaching company, Arboricultural Training Initiative (ATI). This focused on TPO reviews and enabled him to share his knowledge and experience with a wider audience.

Richard Nicholson By Mark Chester

For many involved in planning and the administration of Tree Preservation Orders, Richard Nicholson has become a familiar face in recent years. He has been part of the team assessing candidates on the RFS Professional Diploma Management Exercise and, since 1996, has run seminars on effective reviews of TPOs. He has just concluded chairing the BS 5837 review. We decided it was time to put Richard ‘in the spotlight’.

or those who have attended the various seminars run by Richard, including the recent ten road shows in connection with the updated BS 5837, he is generally regarded as an engaging and informed speaker who has a relaxed manner, and a sense of humour. Indeed, he opened each road show with a quote from Albert Einstein, ‘Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex. It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction’. Reflecting on some of the controversy that the British Standard, including annoyance at the use of ‘z’ instead of ‘s’, he added his own observation, ‘It’s a [British] Standard. Get over it!’ It is perhaps no surprise that Richard’s first professional role was teaching Urban Geography at an Urban Study Centre in Durham.

to be most enjoyable, and a distraction from studies. Teaching became a possible career, and an opportunity to teach arose at Outward Bound. It was whilst sampling this, he saw a tree surgeon dismantling a dead Elm outside Durham Cathedral. This was in 1982, and Richard had never seen such work before.

Richard’s interest in plants began at an early age. His family ran a market garden in Colchester, Essex, and he worked in it from age eleven on Saturdays and during the school holidays. He has therefore always been interested in growing and cultivation. He thought about a career in horticulture, and had an interview at RHS Wisley for a place on their Diploma in Horticulture, the aim being to pursue this course on completion of his O’Levels. In the event, he decided to stay at school and take A’levels, the plan being to study Forestry at Newton Rigg College.

By 1987, newly married, his wife a student and pregnant with their first child, he applied for the post of Assistant Arboricultural Officer at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The following year, he was appointed as Senior Arboricultural Officer with that council. He stayed in the role until 1990, when the family moved to Dorset and he joined East Dorset District Council as their Tree Officer. He remained in this role for 13 years before joining Poole District Council as their Senior Tree Officer.

Whether naturally gifted at examinations, modest, or more gifted than he appreciates, Richard found his A’Level results were better than expected and he chose to study Geography at Durham University. He found rock climbing

Treeline Winter 2012

Once the teaching position concluded, he applied for the first tree related job he saw, and in 1983, he became a climber at Southwark Council. In 1985, he went to Merrist Wood College to study for the one year NCH in Arboriculture. After this, he joined Treecare, an AA Approved Contractor run by Darryl Parkin and Ed Radziwillowicz, based in London. He stayed in this role for a year before briefly running his own contracting company.

Whilst at East Dorset District Council, he became involved with the Arboricultural Association and developed the Local Authority sub-committee, under David Archer, who at that time was the chair of the AA’s Professional Committee. During the 1990s, the issue of reviewing

Having joined the Planning team at Poole District Council in 2003, he moved to that council’s Leisure Services team in 2005 taking the position of Greenspace Development Team Leader. This new role has involved Richard running a team responsible for Nature Conservation, allotments, play, arboriculture and new projects. This latter function involves using S106 Developer Contributions to fund improvement projects on open spaces, especially to meet the increasing demand resulting from new developments. The projects started in 2003, since when the team has carried out tree planting on numerous sites, refurbished over 30 play areas, built a new town centre park, restored a walled garden at Upton Country Park and restored an Edwardian Cricket Pavilion. With the Community Infrastructure Levy replacing Section 106 funding, the team is exploring funding sources with the aim of continuing the work of improving more than 1000 hectares of open space, including Nature Conservation sites, to be found within Poole. For Richard, the next challenge is to develop the public realm within the town centre regeneration area, and to develop a ‘Heritage Lottery Fund Parks for People ‘ bid for Poole Park. The motive for this was summarised when the team refurbished the first play area in 2005. When it was officially opened, 200 kids ran in. Providing open space improvements for the population is something he values doing. He enjoys seeing street trees and new woodlands growing and maturing. However, the best part is to see kids climbing trees with parents who are not being too precious. Richard’s role requires him spending much time in the office, dealing with e-mails, producing reports and planning work. He talks to the team individually every day. He sees his role as helping each member to make their role effective. However, with 20% of the borough being open space, including woods, heath land, beaches, parks and gardens, Richard tries to get out and enjoy it at least once every day. He tries to visit the beach if it’s sunny and does exercise each day. The family chickens also have their moment of his time, with breakfast being delivered before he leaves for work. Given the role, days tend to be fairly routine but he seeks to enjoy the outdoors as much as he can.

Richard has just completed the BS 5837 review. This has clearly been a major project for him. It generated considerable public response. The process of drafting this British Standard involved the pioneering experience of enabling consultees being able to view the comments of others and to comment themselves. The British Standards Institute had not used this approach before. Richard is not entirely convinced of the merits of this process which could lead to considerable discussion on issues without much progress. The level of debate and discussion has included some objections to the grammar used in the document, with ‘z’ used instead of ‘s’ and mm instead of cm for measurements. However, this is the basis of how a British Standard is written, and is not for negotiation.

How does he sum up what has been achieved? He fights the battles he can win.

Whilst Richard remains willing to assist with the on-going process of reviewing British Standards, he has stepped down from the role of chairing the BS5837 or any other review group. Given the challenging, and largely thankless nature of the task, this is probably not surprising. None of those involved in the process receives any remuneration or even expenses. All give freely of their time. Each contribution from a consultee is considered and the panel has to agree on the text for the updated document. This is clearly not work for the faint hearted. However, Richard is particularly interested in looking at the way the updated BS5837 is implemented. For the immediate future, in addition to working to secure funding for the Parks for People bid for Poole Park, the day job will be the main focus. The Leisure Services department that has been home for the past eight years is being disbanded with the various sections being re-allocated to other service units, so a time of change is ahead. For someone who has achieved much, did Richard have a mentor? He recalls his foreman John Silvester, who ran the climbing team at Southwark Council. John taught him to climb, and ‘gave me a slap if I didn’t do what he said!’ In the various local authority roles, he found individuals such as Bryan Wilson, who was working at New Forest District Council as being particularly supportive. The London Tree Officer’s Association, which was embryonic in his days at Southwark and then Kensington and Chelsea, was valued for networking and advice. We think that Richard has achieved much. How does he sum up what has been achieved to date? He suspects that he could try harder, and he tends to gravitate towards things he finds easy, avoiding the hard stuff. However, significantly, and perhaps showing some wisdom, he concludes that he fights the battles he can win.

Treeline Winter 2012

BS5837:2012

What didn’t work

The Flow process worked

However, the Flow process became a sequence of discrete steps, which were almost an end in themselves. There are consultants providing stand-alone Tree Constraints Plans, which was not the intention. The aim was not to create a process of box ticking

Figure 1 stopped cherry picking to a certain extent and set out a process

Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition & Construction:

Having the tree survey first. This informs the process

An Overview Of The Changes

Root Protection Area (RPA) as an area was understood, as was the idea of adjustment to suit site

By Richard Nicholson On 30th April 2012, BS5837:2005 was superseded by BS5837: 2012. In order to assist in informing users, Richard Nicholson, who chaired the review group, presented an overview at

The cascade chart for tree classification was appreciated by non-arboriculturists, such as Planning Inspectors. It has standardised the process, and saves arguments among arboriculturists about different systems

conditions Constraints mapping was useful in representing the 3D tree in 2D. It also helped explain issues about liveability Section 13 ‘Design considerations for new planting’ was valued. It encouraged the use of landscape architects and design advise for new schemes

The ‘R’ class was frequently confused. Did it mean ‘remove’ or ‘retain’? It is now ‘U’ The calculation for multi-stemmed trees did not work The term ‘open-grown’ was not properly explained in the text There was over-zealous use of the ‘sunlight’ argument: it is rarely a ‘no’! Sunlight only, rather than sunlight and daylight, was taken in to account The Tree Constraints Plan had become an entity required by LPAs.

and is written with his permission by Mark Chester. The aim is to summarise key elements of

Mitigation planting

The Arboricultural Method Statement had become rocess driven, or even worse, formulaic. Generic documents, often of little relevance to an individual site, were being produced. What is the objective?

the changes by reference to specific paragraphs. The valuable contribution of Mike Sankus

Protecting areas of the site from construction activity that are reserved for new planting

Is the CEZ just another TLA? The muddled description was not helpful

in editing and proof reading the notes following the road show is gratefully acknowledged.

The type of fencing specified is more realistic

Figure 3

Background to British Standards

The use of ground protection

The fence diagram in Figure 2 was poorly drawn and too prescriptive

ten road shows organised by the Arboricultural Association. This article is based on his notes,

British Standards provide guidance relating to best practice covering thousands of activities throughout the UK. Each British Standard is subject to a review every five years. This considers whether the document needs to be updated, and how. BS5837 had been subject to a major review resulting in the document that came in to effect in 2005.

The Review Group The Review Group comprised Ian Philips, a Landscape Architect; Clive Entwistle, an Engineer; Mike Volp, an Arboricultural Officer representing Local Planning Authorities; Jim Smith, an Arboriculturist representing the Tree Design Action Group, Mick Boddy, an Arboricultural Consultant and Julian Forbes-Laird, an Arboricultural Consultant. BS5837: 2005 had been subject to testing in various forums. These included: • Planning meetings • Pre-application meetings • LPA recommendations • Consultant recommendations • Examination at appeal

What worked

Treeline Winter 2012

The review group looked at what worked, and what had not. As a result, the document was amended, with new sections being added to the first draft where this was deemed relevant. The conclusions are summarised in the table opposite. There has been too much use of acronyms in this document. They have been omitted wherever possible. We will now look in more detail at some specific areas.

Title The new title reflects the entire development process and helps to ensure that the needs of trees are taken in to consideration from the start of the process. Construction is defined as ‘site-based operations’. However, consideration of trees needs to start before then, especially as demolition works frequently occur before planning consent has been sought or granted.

Foreword BS5837:2012 came in to effect on 30th April 2012, with BS5837:2005 being withdrawn the same day. The new standard acknowledges the widespread reproduction of figure 2 showing the fencing details. Figure 2 and figure 3 of the new standard (fencing details), can now be reproduced without infringing copyright.

The definition of the Root Protection Area (RPA) 3D cellular confinement systems are better than 2D

Section 11 contained advice to builders. This is now included in an informative annex

Statements about details in subsequent drawings

References to 3m or 20% were muddles, so the 3m reference has been dropped

Use Of The Document

sets out the process based on the RIBA work stages, and has the main chapter headings in the standard, using a similar language. For example, section 5 has ‘Conception’ and section 6 ‘Design and Technical’.

Some of the language used in the text causing angst among those providing feedback. However, the reality is that this is standard wording for all British Standards and is here to stay. Without it, the document would not be approved by the British Standards Institute.

Introduction The benefits of trees has been highlighted, and for the first time, the term ‘Green Infrastructure’ has been included. The importance of trees as ‘material considerations’ within the planning process has been highlighted. There is mention that the level of detail required can vary from one planning application to another. This aligns the standard with government advice on planning applications. Effort has been made to incorporate trees within the wider planning system. Figure 1

Section 1: Scope There is now emphasis that BS5837:2012 applies regardless of whether a development actually needs planning permission, thereby including work such as Permitted Development.

Section 3: Terms and Definitions Paragraph 3.1 refers to access facilitation pruning. This is limited by the need to ensure pruning works do not have an adverse impact on retained trees, and are limited to what is necessary to ensure access. Paragraph 3.2 includes a better definition of the Arbo-

Treeline Winter 2012

ricultural Method Statement. This is needed for any aspect of development, including demolition, where it lies within the RPA. The Tree Constraints Plan has not been defined, but there is a statement about plotting constraints on relevant drawings, in Paragraph 5.2. This reflects the important of this part of the process. Paragraph 3.7 refers to the Root Protection Area. It is better defined, and treats the protection of roots and soil structure as a priority. RPA is now just about the only abbreviation in the standard-this one got through!

Section 4: Feasibility-Surveys & Preliminary Constraints Paragraph 4.1 contains information about scales and copying of plans, use of a scale bar and monochrome statements. Paragraph 4.3.1 covers soil assessments. It has been included at the request of engineers and landscape architects. It may not need to be a detailed survey, and is not necessarily undertaken by the arboriculturist. It does need to be fit for purpose. Findings from the soil assessment may, in some circumstances result in the RPA being larger that prescribed in Annex D for a given diameter. Paragraph 4.4.1.1 relates to the timing of tree surveys. It ensures that this information is made available to designers prior to formulating design proposals. Paragraph 4.4.1.3 Some Local Planning Authorities have relied on planning conditions to secure tree surveys. This is not recommended. The tree survey is an important part of the evidence base used at the design feasibility stage and must now form part of the planning application at validation. Paragraph 4.4.2.4 This paragraph should be read within the context of proposed development. It is about land use allocations and principles of types of development as defined in local plans (see National Planning Policy Framework), for example, residential, golf courses etc. It does not refer to the details of a particular development design for a site, which forms part of an outline or detailed planning application. Paragraph 4.4.2.4 Provides new advice on the management of trees within groups. Paragraph 4.4.2.6 Relates to measurement conventions. British Standards use SI units. Paragraph 4.4.2.9 This provides information about

Treeline Winter 2012

shrinkable soils and hedgerows, and was added at the request of engineers. Paragraphs 4.5.3 and 4.5.7 The tree category R has been removed, as there was an assumption it referred to ‘remove. The category U is used instead. The three sub-categories ‘arboriculture’, ‘landscape’ and ‘other’ (conservation, heritage, landscape or cultural values) was introduced in BS5837:2005. Generally, the same weight is accrued for each subcategory. The sentence ‘would not accrue added value’ was present in BS5837:2005. It has been omitted. Whilst the situation is the same, the Note was in the wrong place in the process. There was a note at the end of the table in BS5837:2005 ‘whilst category C trees will usually not be retained where they would impose a significant constraint on development, young trees with a stem diameter of less than 150mm should be considered for location’. This has been taken out of the new standard. Table 1 is about gathering the data in order to make decisions, not about condemning a tree before all the data has been gathered. Paragraph 4.5.7 refers to ‘Upgraded’. This is a U grade tree, based on the three bullet points in table 1. However, its’ conservation, heritage, landscape or cultural values make a case for it to be upgraded to a C grade tree for the short term (subject to the safety issues mentioned in this paragraph). Paragraph 4.5.8 There is reference to ‘irremediable diseases’. This applies to serious ailments which have a significant impact on a tree’s safety in the short term. Less serious ailments such as Inonotus on London Plane or nail galls on a Lime shouldn’t downgrade a tree which would, otherwise be graded A, B or C to a U grade. This logic also applies to the third bullet point under U grade trees in table 1. In Table 1, ‘Remaining life expectancy’ has been used in BS5837:2012, rather than ‘substantial’ or ‘significant’ contributions, as set out in BS 5837:2005. Trees can contribute when they are dead! Trees graded A, B or C are generally not dead.

2010. The importance of veteran and ancient trees is highlighted here. Both are classed as A3 grade trees. There was a feeling that an ancient, largely dead tree could, under BS5837:2005 could too easily be classified as an ‘R’ grade tree. Paragraph 4.6.1 The RPA refers to Annex D. This provides the radius based on measured stem diameter at 1.5m. There was a tendency for calculations to result in RPAs with too many decimal places. This is avoided, and was requested at public consultation. The drawings at Annex C are based on those from Australian National Standard. Multi-stemmed trees are based on cross sectional stem diameter, not area. Paragraph 4.6.2 The term ‘open grown’, found in BS5837:2005 was frequently misused. It has been removed and replaced with new wording in BS5837:2012. Paragraph 4.6.3- The list order has been changed. The phrase ‘when known’ has been omitted from BS5837:2012.

Section 5- Proposals: Conception & Design Paragraph 5.1.2- The term ‘Project Arboriculturist’ appears for the first time, and is used until section 7 ‘Demolition and construction in proximity to existing trees’. Paragraph 5.2.2 This refers to designs which should avoid unreasonable obstruction to light and refers to BRE 209, which is frequently used by planners to assess daylight and sunlight issues. It contains a specific appendix on trees. Paragraph 5.2.3 (f)- Solar collectors are referenced: see Thayer – Solae access and the urban forest. Arboricultural Journal, 1983. Volume 7. Paragraph 5.2.4 – There is a note concerning climate change resilience and the contribution of large species. This emphasises the need to take care at the conceptual and design stage for successful integration of healthy trees. Paragraph 5.3.1 – The heading ‘Proximity of structures to trees’ in BS5837:2012 replaces ‘proximity of trees to structures’ in 6.3 of BS5837:2005.

Paragraph 4.5.10 Young trees had been raised as important by the review group in the Draft Public Consultation. However, there was no support for this view amongst the panel, which was therefore removed.

A new default position is applied. This states that all structures should be sited outside the RPA of trees which are being retained, unless there is an overriding justification and the project arboriculturist can demonstrate that it would be acceptable to do otherwise.

Paragraph 4.5.11 A definition of ‘veteran’ is used in paragraph 3.12, which has been taken from BS3998:

Paragraph 5.3.2 – The cumulative effects of in-

cursions in to RPAs was only a note at 6.2.3 of BS5837:2005. It is now a significant consideration in BS5837:2012. There is a new consideration regarding the acceptability of further activity within the RPA. Paragraph 5.3.4 – ‘Shading’ is better defined, and the mix of sunlight and daylight has been rectified in BS5837:2012. The benefits of shading are spelled out better than it was in BS5837:2005. There is also reference in paragraph 5.2.2. Sub section 5.4 – Arboricultural Impact Assessment. This is no longer an implications assessment. The assessment now evaluates the effects of the proposed design, including potentially damaging activities such as removal of existing structures and the location and dimension of all proposed excavations or changes in levels. It also deals with the ‘buildability’ of the scheme. This includes recommendations for any necessary mitigation. Items at paragraph 5.4.3 were included in the Arboricultural Method Statement in BS5837:2005. The Arboricultural Impact Assessment is a document that Local Planning Authorities should require at the planning application stage, prior to validating a planning application.

Sub section 5.5 – Tree Protection Plan The Construction Exclusion Zone is better defined, but has less importance, in BS5837:2012. It was ‘heading 9’ in BS5837:2005. It is now the area inside what would usually, but not always, be the vertical barriers. In some circumstances, ground protection could be considered appropriate, or a combination of both. However, it remains the areas within the barriers that is the Construction Exclusion Zone.

Sub Section 5.6 – New Planting Design And Associated Landscape Operations ‘New planting design and associated operations’ has been brought in to BS5837:2012 at this early stage because it sits comfortably within the Conceptual Design stage of the RIBA work stages. This is still prior planning permission or client approval if no planning permission is needed (ie permitted development). There is a useful commentary on the importance of trees in design and landscape.

Section 6 – Technical Design By this stage, planning permission has been granted.

Treeline Winter 2012

The following have been completed, and where appropriate, submitted with the planning application for validation purposes: 1. Topographical survey

Paragraph 6.1.2 (e) - This is an important statement for certainty of outcome.

what might be acceptable if it can be justified on arboricultural terms.

provides new information about levels in relation to other structures.

Paragraph 6.1.3 – The Method Statement should include a list of contacts for the development to ease communication.

Paragraph 7.3.1 – This relates to access formative pruning. However, the extent must be considered in light of paragraph 3.1, which reiterates the need to ensure pruning works do not have a significant adverse impact on retained trees. For details, see BS3998:2010, and specifically text relating to limitations of crown lifting.

Sub section 7.5 – Special engineering for foundations within the RPA

2. Soil assessment 3. Tree survey 4. Tree categorisation 5. Tree constraints and RPAs are identified and used to influence design 6. Arboricultural Impact Assessment (see the list at paragraph 5.4.3) 7. The issues to be addressed by an arboricultural method statement. It includes heads of terms of Arboricultural Method Statement to provide certainty of outcome. It relates to advice in

paragraph 5.4.3 (h) mentioned above.

8. Landscape proposals 9. A tree protection plan (see level D of Figure 1) 10. Special engineering within RPA and other relevant construction details referred to in paragraph 6.1.2 (d & e). There is commentary on clause 6 which refers to draft form or heads of terms sufficient to provide a high level of confidence. Also refer to paragraph 7.1.3, which makes clear that technical feasibility should be tested at planning application stage by submitted details with the planning application (prior to validation). Paragraphs 7.2.1 and 7.5.5 provide more useful guidance on works inside the RPA. Paragraph 5.3.1 sets the default position and parameters of rational to undertake operations within the RPA.

Sub section 6.1 – Arboricultural Method Statement The question is posed: what is an Arboricultural Method Statement? When are they relevant? Paragraphs 6.1.1 to 6.1.3 provide details of what may be included. They apply whenever any aspect of development lies inside the RPA (see paragraph 3.2). The main purpose is about implementation. Paragraph 6.12 – The Arboricultural Method Statement should be appropriate to the proposals.

Treeline Winter 2012

Sub section 6.2 – Barriers and ground protection The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘barrier’ as ‘anything serving to obstruct passage or to maintain separation, such as a fence’. A fence is ‘a structure that encloses an area’. This could be a chain on posts. Paragraphs 6.2.2.2 and 6.2.2.3 – These set a default specification and the alternatives where circumstances allow for an alternative specification for the barrier. Paragraph 6.2.3.3 – Ground protection solutions are provided in this paragraph, which contains more information. BS5837:2012 refers to three suggested scenarios, an improvement over BS5837:2005, which only referred to ‘engineered’ and ‘fit for purpose’.

Section 7 – Demolition And Construction In Proximity To Existing Trees Paragraph 7.1.1 – This makes it clear that the tree, and the soil structure inside the RPA takes priority when considering construction inside the RPA. Paragraph 3.7 defines the RPA, and talks of the importance of maintaining the tree’s viability and prioritising protecting roots and soil structure. Paragraphs 5.3.1 states that the default position is that structures are located outside the RPA of trees to be retained. BS5837:2005 allowed the flexibility to accommodate a 20% setback of the RPA. This has been removed; developers should no longer assume they can build in the RPA. Paragraph 7.1.3 – This is a very important paragraph. Whilst the text in clause 6 and paragraph 6.12 (e) intimates that details of foundation design inside the RPA might follow planning consent (at condition stage), this paragraph makes clear that the technical feasibility of a proposal for construction within the RPA should be tested at the planning application stage by submitting details with the planning application for validation. It also links to paragraph 7.7.2 and annex B (see Table 1 planning applications). Where works are proposed outside the RPA, see Table 1 in Annex B (Reserved matters/planning conditions). Paragraph 7.2.1 – This provides useful guidance regarding what cannot happen inside the RPA, and

Sub section 7.4 – Permanent hard surfacing within RPA Note that this section does not apply to veteran trees Paragraph 7.4.1 – This relates to site-specific conditions and the expert advice of an arboriculturist. Paragraph 7.4.2.1 – This makes clear that design should not require excavation inside the RPA, except for the removal of turf. Paragraph 7.4.2.3 – BS5837:2005 accepted a 3m or 20% incursion in to the RPA. This was frequently misused or misunderstood. BS5837:2012 limits incursions to 20% of existing UNSURFACED area. This point is repeated in paragraph 7.5.3, which additionally states that it must bear on existing ground level. It applies to hard surfacing and buildings alike, with the impact being similar. Paragraph 7.4.2.4 – De-icing, when in solution, can have a damaging effect on tree roots. Therefore, an impermeable barrier is needed to contain deicing salt. This issue needs to be considered when drafting the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (see paragraph 5.4.3 h).

Paragraph 7.5.1 – This relates to site-specific construction of specially designed structures inside the RPA. There needs to be reference to advice in other parts of BS5837:2012, specifically paragraphs 7.2.1 and 7.5.5 which provide more useful guidance on construction methods, and paragraphs 5.3.1 and 7.5.3, which set the default position and parameters of rationale to undertake operations within the RPA. Paragraph 7.5.4 – Where a system such as ‘Housedeck’ is proposed, the view of the appointed Building Control service needs to be taken in to consideration to ensure it is acceptable. Paragraph 7.6 – This relates to subterranean structures and was included at the request of the London Tree Officers’ Association. Whilst not proven with current levels of understanding and practice, 6 bullet points are provided to the decision-makers considering the issues mentioned in 6.2.

Appendix A and B Annex A –This gives general advice for builders and other interested parties. Annex A contains some text from BS5837:2005, and some of the old Annex C in the same standard. Informative: they contain general advice about trees aimed at builders and others. Arboriculturists should be familiar with the contents.

Paragraph 7.4.2.5 and 7.4.2.6. These paragraphs relate to the requirements of permeable surfacing.

The Standard is prescriptive, in that it describes what ought to be done within the application of the Standard, for example ‘should’ requirements.

Paragraph 7.4.2.6 - Arboriculturists should reference Morgenroth and Buchan ‘Soil moisture and aeration beneath pervious and impervious pavements’. ISA Landscape Below Ground. Volume lll.

The appendices contain supplemental information and guidance, which helps with the conceptual understanding. However, this is not a requirement, and does not compel compliance.

Paragraph 7.4.2.7 – This highlights the need to consider the performance of the surface from the perspective of future tree growth. Paragraph 7.4.2.8 – This recognises the need to consider finished levels of no-dig construction adjacent to damp proof courses and/or finished levels of garage floors. This is often overlooked. The paragraph

Treeline Winter 2012

Tree Preservation Orders

Some Points to Effective Enforcement By Mark Chester For those responsible for administering TPOs, the process of pursuing a breach via enforcement action can become a major project.

A successful enforcement can bring professional

satisfaction. However, an unsuccessful prosecution can be extremely frustrating. Whilst this may be due to circumstances beyond the officer’s control, there are some key principles which can improve the strength of a prosecution.

he author was involved in the prosecution of an alleged breach of a TPO earlier this year, and observed the case gradually progress. Watching one of the barristers at first hand identified some issues which those responsible for enforcing TPOs may not be aware of. Many appreciate the need for the original legal document to be available, fully complete and in an enforceable condition, having been confirmed at the time of the offence, with the trees correctly classified. However, the following points may not be appreciated by all.

There is reference in the Blue Book to a tree being what a reasonable person would think it is. This can seem vague. Back in the 1980s, Lord Justice Denning made what have since been considerable maverick and unsustainable pronouncements, many of which have since been reviewed and ‘clarified’. These included the view that a tree could only be regarded as a tree if the trunk diameter exceeded seven inches. The subsequent view, along

If you wish to be considered as an expert witness for the court hearing, any statements you produce need to be written in the expert report format, otherwise they may not be deemed admissible. This includes providing details of your qualifications and credentials. If you are there as an expert, your duty is to the court. If the facts as you understand them change, it is better to acknowledge this than to rigorously maintain your position. If you have made a mistake, such as an incorrect date, this should be clarified at the earliest opportunity.

It may be useful to seek an independent opinion regarding the merits of your case. After all, this is how it will be determined by the magistrates. If a lay person not involved in the case sees its’ strengths, the magistrates are more likely to.

Finally, decide whether a formal prosecution is the best way forward. If the defendant is found guilty and fined, the fine goes to the court, and then the treasury. The defendant does not have to rectify the work. It may be preferable to require them to undertake remedial work such as planting replacement trees.

3 4

Treeline Winter 2012

The five days notification to undertake works is a recommendation, and is not statutory. Whilst the burden of proof lays with the landowner to demonstrate work was exempt, the absence of notification is not reason to commence enforcement action.

the lines that if it looks like a tree it probably is a tree, was the result of the pronouncement being reviewed.

The case needs to be ‘particularised’. This involves providing details of each alleged breach. Simply submitting a series of photographs is unlikely to be sufficient. Unless all evidence has been removed from site at the time of investigating, each tree subject to the enforcement needs to be easy to identify when the court case comes, so that others including the magistrates and the defendant can see the evidence. This may involve tagging the trees or stumps. There may be a delay of more than a year between the alleged breach and the day in court. If the evidence is now hard to find, this will not help the case.

The Local Authority has a legal responsibility to fully investigate a case. This includes interviewing all relevant parties. This means that if a neighbour did the unauthorised work, the owner should still be interviewed. If they agreed to the work, or facilitated it, by, for example, providing access, they may also have breached the TPO. All parties being interviewed should be asked to explain why they did the work, or facilitated it, knowing that the work would breach the TPO. The work may have been exempt, which is not always evident when investigating what remains.

rendered worthless as a thing of amenity worth preserving. Some caution may be needed here. The reference in the Blue Book is to a case brought against the Eastern Electricity Board in 1973 by the London Borough Council of Barnet. In this case, the roots of six horse chestnut trees had been severed in the process of a trench being excavated. The trees had not been destroyed by this action, but had their life span severely shortened and all were soon removed. Unless you are prepared for the tree to become exempt and removed, the lesser charge may be better.

It is much easier to bring a prosecution for unauthorised tree works, although the penalty is less severe. However, proceedings need to be issued within six months of the alleged breach being discovered. Other work probably needs to be prioritised around this. It can be tempting to seek to prosecute for destruction when a tree has been badly damaged but not destroyed, as the guidelines state a tree does not need to have been obliterated to have been destroyed; it is sufficient if it has been

Treeline Winter 2012

(Chalara fraxinea) 1

Ash dieback disease (Chalara fraxinea) 8

Leaf necrosis (a) extending into leaflet vein (b) and rachis (c). Diseased saplings typically display dead tops and/or side shoots. 4

At the base of dead side shoots, lesions can often be found on the subtending branch or stem.

Lesions which girdle the branch or stem can cause wilting of the foliage above.

Mature trees affected by the disease initially display dieback of the shoots and twigs at the periphery of their crowns. Dense clumps of foliage may be seen further back on branches where recovery shoots are produced.

Necrosis of rachis (arrowed) and associated desiccation of leaflets. 13

Older lesion associated with leaf scar. 15

Developing lesion centred on a dead side shoot. 16

In late summer and early autumn ( July to October), fruiting bodies of Hymenoscyphus can be found on blackened rachises (leaf stalks) of ash in damp areas of leaf litter beneath trees. These do not necessarily belong to the pathogen but can be tested to determine their identity.

38 Treeline Winter 2012 www.forestry.gov.uk/planthealth

Lesion on rachis (ends arrowed) without leaflet symptoms.

Developing lesions associated with leaf scars.

plant.health@forestry.gsi.gov.uk

Older lesion centred on a dead side shoot.

www.forestry.gov.uk/planthealth

Old lesion centred on a dead side shoot.

Photos 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15 & 16 courtesy and copyright of Thomas Kirisits; Photos 6 & 7 courtesy and copyright of Lea Vig McKinney; Photos 1, 4 & 5 courtesy and copyright of Iben Margrete Thomsen.

Ash dieback disease

The wood and pith underlying bark lesions is usually strongly stained. Treeline Winter 2012 39 plant.health@forestry.gsi.gov.uk

It seems fitting, at a time when some in Scotland seek to break up the Union, to remember the King who united our two countries in 1603, when King James Vl of Scotland became King James I of England. James was an old style Monarch; he believed in the Divine Right of Kings, which was common among the monarchs of that time. He saw himself in the Arthurian role. Knightly pursuits, hunting and sporting were high on his agenda. His problem was that Parliament controlled the finances. It is hard to be King Arthur on a shoe string budget, so James tried a number of schemes to make himself financially independent of them. One that he never gave up on was his attempt to start his own silk industry in England. For this he needed silk worms and to feed them he needed Mulberry leaves.

ing James had tens of thousands of Mulberry Trees planted in England. Unfortunately the Mulberry that grows best in England is Morus nigra, the Black Mulberry, whereas the Mulberry favoured by silk worms is Morus alba, the White Mulberry. Still James persisted. The royal silkworms were granted special attendants as well as a groom of the Chamber whose task it was to carry them ‘withersoever his Majesty went’. This, of course meant that the planting of Mulberry Trees was not restricted to the Royal Estates; any loyal subject whom the King might visit on his travels was required to have a supply of Mulberry leaves to feed the royal silk worms.

The Mulberry

& the King By Mark Hinsley

Treeline Winter 2012

John Loudon (1783 – 1843) wrote: “there is scarcely an old garden or gentlemen’s seat throughout the country, which can be traced back to the 17th century, in which a mulberry tree is not to be found”. The royal colony in Virginia was also ordered to grow Mulberry Trees. Unfortunately for James, the silkworms never arrived there; some were shipwrecked in 1609 and others died at sea in 1622 - and Virginia grew tobacco instead. James and his courtiers did produce silk, but not in sufficient volume to be financially viable. One quirk of the Black Mulberry is that, although it has been in cultivation for thousands of years, it does not have myriad varieties; there is still only the species Black Mulberry. Another mystery is its’ apparent reputation for slow growth and great age, neither is true. In fact the Mulberry grows quickly, particularly when grown in the traditional method from a truncheon, a five foot length of

branch buried two feet in the ground. Trees grown in this way are multi stemmed and rapidly take on the appearance of age. This vegetative reproduction may be part of the reason why no varieties have been produced. The Charlton House Mulberry in Greenwich, London has an old plaque which says “The first Mulberry planted in England in the year 1608 by Order of James I.” It is extremely unlikely that this is the original tree, but, due to the use of truncheons, it will be ‘part’ of the original tree, recycled one or twice. The Mulberry is often associated with the literary world; Shakespeare, Milton, Keats and Mary Shelley all have their Mulberry stories. No doubt these descended from one of James’ Mulberries in the garden of Wentworth Place where in 1818 Keats wrote “Ode to a Nightingale”. The Mul ‘berries’ are not true berries; each globe is an individual fruit. They are edible but difficult to store because they are very fragile. The Mulberry is a good landscape tree, rapidly giving maturity to gardens, but don’t plant it over patios and hard surfaces as the fruits will drop and stain everything purple! This article is based on a feature written by Mark Hinsley, an arboricultural consultant, for The Gardener’s Gazzette. It has been used with permission, and is edited for inclusion in TreeLine.

Treeline Winter 2012

The Woodland Skills Centre Part Two at the Warren Woods in Bodfari

In 1980, Rod Waterfield bought 21 acres of neglected woodlands in the middle of the Clwydian Range Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) in north-east Wales. He spent the next three decades transforming the site, creating a Woodland Skills Centre. In the first of four articles, he explained how the site was recovered following years of neglect. Now he explains how it is managed to provide a sustainable woodland facility. The Clwydian Range runs south from the coast by Prestatyn along the east side of the Vale of Clwyd and is crowned by a series of iron age hillforts and superb views north to Liverpool Bay, east to the Cheshire Plain and west towards the Denbigh Moors and Snowdonia. The Offa’s Dyke long-distance footpath runs along the Clwydian Hills, and passes within a few metres of Warren Woods. The woodlands in the AONB are largely Forestry Commission softwoods with a few smaller woods, mostly being parts of farms on the lower slopes. Warren Woods is formed across a variety of sites. There are about 2ha which is a Planted Ancient Woodland Site (PAWS). Such sites are historically important woodlands which have suffered from plantation man-

Treeline Winter 2012

agement and are now being restored. The steepness of the slope and the main road at the bottom of the slope present problems in the restoration. There are 8ha of 70 year old self-sown hardwood on abandoned rough grazing. There are 7ha of new plantings on a former sand quarry. There are 2ha of former low grade grazing which has been planted up. These four areas are adjoining, but were in separate ownership and, between 1983 and 1990, Rod was able to buy them and bring them in to one ownership. This has enabled a management plan to be prepared and implemented for the whole 20ha woodland. From the outset, the woodland management plan had three equal objectives, these being: social, environmental and financial. The woodland was opened to

permissive public access, with more than 2 kilometres of maintained paths, and it is well used by the local community. It is also the base for Forest School and various courses. The environmental objective is that the woodland should contain all the plants and wildlife that one would expect to find in such woodland, and so habitats have been created to protect and encourage different species. The coppice rotation has seen a noticeable increase in ground flora and wildlife. The financial objective is that the woodland should generate sufficient income through course fees and the sale of materials to pay for its management.

Social Management Objective The woodlands have been open under permissive public access since Rod bought them. The woodland had been rough grazing until about 1945, when it was allowed to revert to woodland with the trees, which were on the old hedge banks, set-seeded onto the bare ground. Most of the new trees were sycamore, which were overstocked and of the same age class. There was little ground flora or natural regeneration. The first job was to remove most of the sycamore and plant a range of native hardwood trees, mainly oak, ash and hazel, with the aim of creating a coppice with standard woodland. As the wood was thinned, a network of way-marked paths was created to encourage people to explore the woodland whilst keeping to the paths. These paths are maintained by the vegetation being cut with a tractor and rotary mower twice a year. Creating the paths has been so successful that walkers and horse riders keep to them rather than exploring, allowing most of the woodland to remain untouched. The woodlands are also used by Warren Woods Ltd, a community-owned not-for-profit Social Enterprise company formed in 2009, which trades as a Woodland Skills Centre. The Centre has created 2 Forest School sites. Each has a large shelter, fire circle and compost toilet. These sites are used for about 100 days a year for the Forest School, Holiday Clubs, Family days, week-ends and weeks, birthday parties in the woods and bush craft courses. The result is that the woodland is used and enjoyed by many people of all ages. However, activity is restricted to specific areas so allowing the rest of the woodland to remain undisturbed.

Environmental Objective The objective is that the woodland should have within it all the species which one would expect to find in a woodland like this in this area. There is an ongoing process of monitoring to identify what is

present there, but struggling, so that habitats can be improved. The process also seeks to identify species that are not present so that new habitats can be created to encourage and accommodate them. This work has involved leaving open areas within the woodland, in addition to the areas which are regularly coppiced, and creating wide and winding rides with a shrub layer, mostly hazel, at the edges. A pond has also been created. Nothing was introduced to the pond or the cleared area around it when it was created, but, within 2 years, it was naturally colonised by a range of plants and animals including frog, toad and great-crested newt. Dormice boxes and bird nest-boxes have been installed and ivy is left on many of the mature trees to encourage insects and birds and provide nesting sites and bat roosts. The continuous surveying is partly undertaken by staff of the Woodland Skills Centre, often as part of activities with adults and children – pond dipping, mini-beast hunts, plant and tree identification games – and partly by external organisations such as the North Wales Wildlife Trust and RSPB. Care has been taken to avoid introducing non-native species. However, as it is a relatively young woodland, some appropriate native woodland plants, sourced from Shipton Bulbs, have been planted.

Financial Objective The objective is that the woodland should be financially viable. There is a small annual grant from Forestry Commission Wales to support the public access and the Woodland Skills Centre pays a site fee of £25 for each day that the woods are used. The Forest School sites are also regularly used by groups such as Scouts, Cubs and Guides and these organisations pay the same site fee. This use brings in about £2000 a year. The Woodland Skills Centre also buys timber and coppice material for the courses it runs. The dayto-day management of the woods is undertaken by a small local woodland management company which undertakes all thinning, coppicing and planting in exchange for taking the firewood and materials such as coppice hazel for hurdles. The end result is that the woodland is well managed and brings an income which is greater than the management costs. The success of the management plan has meant that the woodlands are enjoyed by hundreds of people each year, wildlife has thrived and the woodland makes a profit for the owner. It is a good example of multi-purpose forestry and shows that quite small woodlands can meet a range of different objectives successfully.

Treeline Winter 2012

Russell Ball

Russell was an obvious replacement, bustling with energy and ideas. He was planning to leave his role as Tree Officer at Harrow Council to become a freelance consultant, and proposed to become a member of CAS at this point. As Nigel handed the Chapter Presidency to Russell, little did I realise how closely I would be working with him during his term.

By Mark Chester

Russell appreciated the need to arrange some technical seminars in order to disseminate information to Chapter members, and others. I had benefitted from these during my earlier days as a tree officer-they were affordable, accessible and led by knowledgeable presenters who had something worthwhile to share. On the horizon emerged a tree health seminar to be held at Kew Gardens, hosted by Dr. Glynn Percival. I thought of attending. However, Kew Gardens is quite a trek for me. Then Russell offered the opportunity for me to share a bit about CAS from the stage. In front of 140+ people! This was a much appreciated gesture which enabled

A Personal Appreciation During the ISA AGM in October 2012, Russell handed over the baton of President, his two

year term which began in June 2012 having concluded. In my role with the Consulting Arborist Society, which is affiliated to the chapter, I have come to know him and see him operate. I wished to take the opportunity to thank him for all his efforts during this time. Members will appreciate that the two year Presidency as a time of energy and activity. Perhaps less well known is that Russell has been active in the Chapter for much longer. Indeed, he was part of the team who founded the Chapter in 1992.

Indeed, he ran the

original office. On his return from a sojourn in Spain, in 2007, he was soon back on the scene with the Chapter.

n 2009, I was asked to be the CAS representative to the ISA board, and began being included in the regular e-mails dispatches from board members. Russell’s energy was soon evident from these. In the build-up to the Student Climbing Championships held at Moulton College in June 2012, he approached me and invited/asked me to present a seminar on the career of an arboricultural consultant. In the event, we found that the students preferred being in the open during glorious sunny days and we reverted to plan

Treeline Winter 2012

‘B’, although I’m still not sure which one this was. This was my first trade show with CAS, and I arrived, as requested, on the eve of the event, and pitched my stand in the allotted space. During the first day, it became apparent that this was not the best place, so Russell and a ‘volunteer’ from the ISA stand soon helped me to move to a better position. Nigel Smith’s term as President was about to end. The President-elect had withdrawn candidacy and

me to share about CAS to a new audience and was the start of a close personal relationship. In June 2011, Russell arranged for the chapter to have a stand at the ARB show next to CAS and we were able to work together. His ability to get a team together was evident. In July 2011, he organised the first ArborCamp at the FR Jones Arbor Show in Kent. Having a technical programme was an important feature, and he was soon persuading the great and the good to contribute. He was willing to share the platform with CAS, and provided me with a slot to share about the role of the consultant. He did seem more comfortable under canvas than I am! With his encouragement, I booked a stand for CAS at the AA conference in Warwick, something I previously hadn’t considered. Then in January 2012, I was invited to become editor of TreeLine, the magazine for Chapter members. Previously, editing had been a solitary role for me. However, this was not Russell’s way. He is very much a team player. He was soon forwarding potential articles and directing contributors to me. He assembled an editorial board to support the work and has contributed many ideas. This has made my life so much more straight forward, and I can concentrate on writing, commissioning and meeting publishing deadlines. During 2012, the chapter organised two seminars with Jim Urban and his ‘Up By Roots’. Whilst Russell worked hard behind the scenes to ensure the events were a success, his main priority with the reviews was to ensure that others who had participated in supporting practical demonstrations were properly recognised.

Russell is well connected and persuasive. When he asks, it is hard to refuse. Appreciating the importance of technical updates, but also aware of how limited training budgets can be, he persuaded Gristwood & Toms to host and sponsor a series of seminars at their Shenley base, providing facilities and catering free of charge. He then persuaded speakers of the calibre of Jim Smith, Ted Green and Sharon Hosegood, along with companies such as I-Trees, Geosynthetics and Sorbus International, to share, ensuring a series of high calibre events. Dr. Jon Heuch concludes the series for 2012 in November, talking on the topic of Professional Amenity Tree Valuation. Russell has worked tirelessly behind the scenes to bring a range of events together, and without his efforts, the chapter would not be where it is today. However, he does not seek recognition and is reluctant to be in the spotlight. In January 2012, when the Consulting Arborist Society needed a base for an important meeting, Russell offered to host the meeting at his home, and contributing where he could from his experience with the ISA chapter. Russell is, indeed, generous, diplomatic, keen to work with others and to see the positives in a situation. These skills have helped to ensure the Chapter has enjoyed an amicable relation with the Arboricultural Association during his term. At the end of a term in office involving much hard work, others may have looked forward to winding down and passing on the baton. Not Russell. Forward-thinking, he was keen to organise an event for 2013 suitable to mark the Chapter’s 21st anniversary in a suitably distinct manner. He persuaded Jeremy Barrell and Dr. David Lonsdale to share a platform at the Royal Botanical Gardens in Kew for ‘Expert’s Question Time’. This will be a new format for all involved. Russell has become a valued friend, willing to work with others across the industry spectrum, to connect people, to share knowledge and to progress our understanding of trees. A bundle of energy who prefers to be doing to watching, he has prepared for his next venture, founding the charity ‘Fund 4 Trees. The ‘Ride for Research’ rides, which include trees planting, is one of the fundraising initiatives. As part of this, he has assembled a team with representatives from across the spectrum who share his vision and has persuaded a group of supports to contribute the funds required to launch a charity. A friend to many, one thing is certain: this ‘immediate past-president’ is not planning to ride off in to the sunset, and has much still to give.

Treeline Winter 2012

In My Opinion

by Mark Chester

In these economically challenging times, training budgets are coming under pressure and investing in professional development can require greater justification than normally is the case. Does it still benefit the professional arborist to gain accreditations? Is experience more valuable than qualifications?

s price becomes an increasingly important factor for allocating work, it can be argued that the costs of presenting a professional service with qualified staff is not feasible especially when competing against those prepared to cut corners. However, I suggest that those who provide services with which they are not acquainted and competent run the risk of being caught out. I recall the anecdote shared at a conference on British Standards in Arboriculture held in Leicester several years ago. A contractor contacted the Arboricultural Advisory Service to see what BS3998 involved, as he promoted his work to this standard. In my role with the Consulting Arborist Society (CAS), I routinely liaise with individuals considering pursuing the various accreditations recognised by the society. Whilst some ask ‘where do I sign?’, others challenge me to justify the process. In 2010, CAS added the Lantra Professional Tree Inspector qualification to the range of accreditations it recognises. Many members already held the qualification and others soon signed up for the course being run by CAS. I was challenged by one member, who cited more than thirty years experience surveying trees. Did this not count for anything? Experience can be valuable, depending on its’ nature. In the absence of training and appraisal, experience alone does not demonstrate competency. The Australian bowler Shane Warne once said, rather harshly, of the England bowler Monty Panesaar who spoke of having the experience of 34 test matches, ‘he hasn’t played in 34 tests; he has played one test 34 times!’ I took the Lantra PTI course in 2010, alongside peers some of whom have several decades of consultancy experience. Some evidently felt very confident of their own ability, and the group was particularly informed. Not all passed, and in discussions, gaps in knowledge became evident. I appreciated being in the company of my peers and learnt from them, although not everyone seemed willing to learn. Tree reports to BS5837 are a key element of work for many arborists, including those who maybe

Treeline Winter 2012

don’t regard themselves as consultants. There is no one approach to these reports, although the British Standard sets out the requirements. CAS accredits the competency via peer review, and I have realised that many of those offering this service to not seem to appreciate what is actually required. I recall a case, several years ago, when I was asked to advise on a development site where an application to build a property near to a Beech tree had been refused and the subsequent appeal dismissed. The applicant had commissioned a BS5837 report from an established practice at some cost, and was bewildered at the outcome. Looking at the report, I was surprised at how limited it was, although it covered more than 20 pages of text. Much of this was generic, and there seemed to be little relating to the site and its’ specific issues. I have often thought that peer review of that particular report would have been eye-opening. I know how my own reports have benefitted from training and peer review, especially the one day course that DR. Jon Heuch runs on Effective Report Writing. When people question the merits of training, I do wonder what have they got to lose? The ISA’s Certified Arborist qualification is internationally recognised, providing a platform for aspiring, and experienced arborists, to gain credentials. Yet it is interesting how many established practitioners have avoided this assessment, and others who were caught out by the questions and have needed to re-sit. Training and Continuous Professional Development needs to be relevant and at a sufficient level. I remember attending a seminar in London not so long ago, where some of the delegates were better informed that the presenters, and there is an appreciation among the more forward thinking organisers that topics need to be up to date, ensuring those attending can learn something new. However, the science of arboriculture is progressing and it is important that those of us seeking to present ourselves as professionals remain up to date developments.

Where Has All the Mistletoe Gone? by The Mistletoe League

Mistletoe is a parasitic plant found on trees such as fruit trees in orchards and gardens. There is anecdotal evidence that the population is in decline, affected by the widespread loss of traditional orchards and lack of management. The Mistletoe League Project, being run by a small consultancy, Mistletoe Matters, based in Gloucestershire, is planning to survey sites with the plant in order to improve our understanding. The aim is to collect useful information on management techniques, attitudes, harvest and varietal performance. The focus is on Mistletoe in orchards and private gardens, rather than in the wild.

It is being affected by the loss of host plants, lack of management, where a crop becomes uneconomic and is abandoned. The host is then left unpruned, and the Mistletoe grows unrestricted. This may sound ideal, but it can become too prolific leading to the death of host and parasite. For more details and updates, visit the project website http://british.mistletoe.org.uk/

Treeline Winter 2012

The Pine’s Winter Stand By Mark Chester

The Pine stands, alert and on guard, as ever. All around, nature is asleep. It could be called the season of nature’s night shift, with only essential work being done. All is dormant. Grasses bent over, huddling against the winter rain and frosts. Hedgerows, stripped of their summer coat of colour Except for occasional red berries of rose hip to break the grey monotony Oak and ash reach out bare limbs And silently sigh in deep sleep. As the passing breeze flutters a handful of brown leaves which hung on against the autumn winds. All is quiet, all is calm. Pine needles work to absorb the brief strands of sunlight, Their work at this hour never fully complete. There is no conversation, as the landscape has been put to bed. But a reassurance, with the passing of mid-winter, that the dawn of spring, With its’ oh-so-subtle stirrings, is but around the corner. And the Pine will remain alert and on guard to herald its arrival.

Treeline Winter 2012