Ash Die Back

We are all learning what we can very quickly about Ash Die Back (ADB) in the hope that we can take steps to help make the outbreak of th einfection less damaging than Dutch Elm Disease (DED).   However, amongst a huge amount of information being posted on UK Tree Care (http://www.tree-care.info/uktc) a very pertinent recent comment from Roderick Leslie is that history may not help: there is no read across between infections, each is different and so each will present different learning opportunities to the tree manager.

Can ADB be contained/eradicated?   The answer at the moment is unclear; I first heard about it one evening in the summer when walking along the canal, a pocket park had been re-stocked with ash trees that the nursery re-called, others will have seen the symptoms earlier, I believe I have read of outbreaks reported from 2009 when the infection went without a name.

My first anniversary

A year ago I was released into the wild, a combination of factors that had their roots with my employer, and without doubt with me and my team, lead to my new way of life as an independent arboricultural consultant without a car, for the first time since I was 17.

 

What have I learnt in this year?

The absolute truth behind “you’ve got to have friends”, which, if you like, you can re-phrase as “it’s not what you know, it’s who you know”.   I have always tried throughout my professional career as I rose to high office (as an aside click through to http://tinyurl.com/bgphda) to treat people with dignity and respect (there will always be exceptions and if you are one then I’m sorry!) which may go some way to help explain why friends and acquaintances from the arboricultural community, and indeed the wider grounds maintenance community, have invested their faith, and to some extent their own reputation and political capital, in me in the past year and had the courage to believe that I could deliver on their behalf.
 
Another truism, to paraphrase a great friend "Whatever the question, marketing is the answer".   I’ve tired to find the time to say something new and eye catching on the various social media platforms in the past twelve months – sometimes I’ve managed, other times not.   There is an awful lot of data available at the click of a mouse, and in my limited area I’ve tried to collate and present that as readable and reliable information.

“Be careful what you wish for” also comes to mind – the opportunity to work for some large organisations may well provide technical and professional satisfaction and good kudos for the c.v. or case studies but the war of attrition that has to be entered in order to get an invoice honoured is depressing at best.   In the past year the speediest payers have been individuals or small organisations (with one honourable exception, step forward Sarah!).

I have had opportunities to work for organisations on projects that would never have come my way as an employee, and indeed the opportunity to pursue niche projects that any employer may have told their staff to shy away from.

I have also had the opportunity to drop all the corporate form filling and meetings that were held, seemingly for the sake of process, rather than for any meaningful outcome.   Some of the discipline that became ingrained has been useful, but only some!

What have I earned this year?

About half of what I am used to, that is if my invoices are to be paid rather than simply used to play email tennis, but I’ve yet to resolve my tax burden with my accountant which may throw me a lifeline.

What are my ambitions?

Ideally UK plc will pick up and generate the need for senior figures to occupy high office once again, if so I will do my best to be ready.   Until that time I shall continue to operate as an independent arboricultural consultant, with considerable experience in the sector I reckon I should be able to help you with most enquiries.

 

Contact me on

07501 059 566 or
go2Jonathan.Hazell@gmail.com

 

Trees in the Townscape: A Guide for Decision Makers

Trees in the Townscape: A Guide for Decision Makers (the Guide) has just been published by the Trees & Design Action Group (TDAG) and is available online at http://tinyurl.com/6uxsnep.

Overall the Guide seems to me to be a splendid document that does exactly what it claims – to offer guidance (note guidance, not prescriptions) to those involved in making or influencing decisions that shape the spaces and places in which we live.   And, by “those involved” I mean far more than the Tree Officer – the target groups include local interest groups and local politicians, as well as the technical experts required.

The Guide is well structured into four complimentary groups of three principles under the broad headings of Plan, Design, Plant/Protect, and Manage/Monitor and as such is a development of the classic Deming cycle – Plan, Do, Check/Study, and Adjust.   The text is very clearly laid out so that the key players for each group of principles (who change throughout the document) are identified and their roles and actions, in seeking to improve the quality and quantity of trees in the townscape, are clearly stated.   The Guide is also extensively illustrated with case studies from the UK and overseas, some of which will be familiar to the student of this particular genre but others will have been brought into the light here perhaps for the first time.

The authors state that some overarching principles that appear to be common to all good decision making have been set down for everyone involved in making or influencing decisions that shape the spaces and places in which we live.   Target groups that are specifically mentioned here include

local elected members, policy makers and community groups together with large land estate owners, such as registered social landlords.   [The Guide] will also be useful to those professionals who bring their technical expertise to facilitate delivery, such as engineers, architects, landscape architects or urban designers.

I found this list of professionals, which specifically excludes the arboriculturist, to be refreshing, encouraging and most welcome!   My own view is that many of those professionals in arboriculture that I have come across have been too intimately involved in the minutiae surrounding individual trees and so “fail to see the wood for the trees”.  The Guide should encourage arboriculturists to lift their vision so that they too see the same vistas as the politicians and other professionals who are involved, the unwritten threat of course is that if the arboriculturist can not adapt and think more strategically and consider the broad sweep as well as the fine grain then he/she will be increasingly marginalised in the decisions that influence the tree cover in the spaces and places in which we live.

TDAG have developed the Guide after extensive consultation with what they describe as a star chamber, of

key knowledge holders in the built environment sector including civil engineers, insurers, developers, designers, planners, tree officers, sustainability specialists, arboriculturists, tree nursery managers, ecologists, academics, and not-for-profit organisations specialising in community engagement and trees.

The guidance

The twelve principles which have been laid down are divided amongst four broad groups, and are listed below.   It is to the authors credit that such direct and simple messages have been delivered in a supportive way throughout the narrative.

Plan

1. Know your tree resource

Create and maintain easy-to-use records of the existing canopy cover and the nature and condition of the tree population

2. Have a comprehensive tree strategy

Produce, adopt and implement a collaborative strategy for protecting, developing and managing a thriving, benefit-generating urban forest which is in tune with local needs and aspirations 

3. Embed trees into policy and other plans

Adopt clear standards for the protection, care and planting of trees in the local plan and key corporate policy and investment documents 

Design

4. Make tree-friendly places

Create places where tree species can thrive and deliver their full range of benefits without causing harmful nuisance 

5. Pick the right trees

Select and use trees appropriate to the context 

6. Seek multiple benefits

Harvest the full range of benefits trees can deliver as part of a local green infrastructure system, focusing on key local aspirations 

Plant/Protect

7. Procure a healthy tree

Plant healthy, vigorous trees that have been adequately conditioned to thrive in the environment in which they are destined to live 

8. Provide soil, air and water

Ensure trees have access to the nutrients, oxygen and water they need to fulfil their genetic potential for growth and longevity 

9. Create stakeholders

Work with local political, professional and community stakeholders to champion the value of trees in the townscape 

Manage/Monitor

10. Take an asset management approach

Inform all planning, management and investment decisions with a robust understanding of both the costs and the value trees deliver 

11. Be risk aware (rather than risk averse)

Take a balanced and proportionate approach to tree safety management 

12. Adjust management to needs

Conduct proactive and tailored tree maintenance to ensure optimum benefits in response to local needs

Much of this rings distant bells from my days as a forestry student at Bangor and resonates with what I have been trying to do more recently with strategic documents that I have drafted for a variety of clients building upon my training and experience.

Overall this Guide is an excellent piece of work that deserves a space on the desk of all those who are, or who want to be, involved in the decisions that shape the spaces and places in which we live.

TELL ME I’M ALONE?

Tell me that I’m alone in becoming frustrated by bad practice in our everyday environment?

For more, click on to  http://bit.ly/KpmLYx

My thanks to Pip Howard for the opportunity to reach a wider audience, http://europeantrees.wordpress.com/

AIA and AMS

1.            Introduction

1.         BS 5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations [1](referred to hereafter as BS5837) offers guidance to all the professionals involved with and interested in trees and development, it is not a specification.   The Foreword of BS5837 states, on page iii,

It has been assumed in the preparation of this British Standard that the execution of its provisions is entrusted to appropriately qualified and experienced people, for whose use it has been produced.

2.         This guidance note seeks to explain the scope and extent of the arboricultural impact assessment and the arboricultural method statement and when in the development process such documents are required.

2.            Terms and definitions

3.         The text that follows in italics is taken from BS5837:

For the purposes of this British Standard, the following terms and definitions apply. 

3.2 arboricultural method statement

methodology for the implementation of any aspect of development that is within the root protection area, or has the potential to result in loss of or damage to a tree to be retained 

3.3 arboriculturist

person who has, through relevant education, training and experience, gained expertise in the field of trees in relation to construction

3.4 competent person

person who has training and experience relevant to the matter being addressed and an understanding of the requirements of the particular task being approached

NOTE A competent person is expected to be able to advise on the best means by which the recommendations of this British Standard may be implemented.

3.6 construction exclusion zone

area based on the root protection area from which access is prohibited for the duration of a project

3.7 root protection area

layout design tool indicating the minimum area around a tree deemed to contain sufficient roots and rooting volume to maintain the tree’s viability, and where the protection of the roots and soil structure is treated as a priority

3.11 tree protection plan

scale drawing, informed by descriptive text where necessary, based upon the finalized proposals, showing trees for retention and illustrating the tree and landscape protection measures

3.            Arboricultural impact assessment

1.         Under paragraph 5.4 of BS5837 the project arboriculturist is recommended to use the information available to evaluate the direct and indirect effects of the proposed development upon the tree stock and to prepare an arboricultural impact assessment.   If mitigation is available that will lessen the adverse impacts of the development upon the tree stock then that should be explored and proposed in the arboricultural impact assessment.

2.         The arboricultural impact assessment should be fully rounded, taking account of the effects of any tree losses that may be required to implement the design, and any potentially damaging activities proposed in the vicinity of retained trees.   The assessment should not restrict itself to the consequences of the permanent works that are identified in the development proposal but should also consider those measures that may be taken whilst the works are in progress (temporary access routes, working space, storage and so on).

3.         The ideal arboricultural impact assessment will include

1.         the tree survey plan and schedule with the trees selected for retention, pruning  or removal clearly identified, and an evaluation of the impact of any proposed losses, and 

2.         a review of the constraints that the trees selected for retention will impose upon the development, and

3.         a draft tree protection plan that indicates the precise location and extent of the various tree protection measures that are to be implemented, including the measures proposed for protecting areas of future planting, and

4.         the issues that will need to be addressed by an arboricultural method statement.

4.            Arboricultural method statement

1.         The arboricultural method statement will adopt a precautionary approach toward tree protection and any operations, including access, proposed within the RPA (or crown spread where this is greater) should be described in order to demonstrate that they will have a minimal adverse impact upon the trees to be retained.

2.         An arboricultural method statement will typically consider some or all of the following:

·         the removal of existing structures and hard surfaces

·         the installation of temporary ground protection measures

·         the required excavations, including the needs of specialized trenchless techniques

·         the installation of new hard surfaces, including the nature of the materials, design constraints and implications for levels

·         any specialist foundations that may be required – installation techniques and the effect on finished floor levels and overall height

·         any retaining structures required to facilitate proposed changes in ground levels

·         preparatory works for new landscaping

3.         In addition the arboricultural method statement will incorporate an auditable system of site monitoring, including a schedule of specific site events requiring the project arboriculturist’s input or supervision.

5.            Timing

1.         Under BS5837, in order to retain significant trees on site, the developer and the local planning authority will require:

·         good quality, well considered, tree-related advice given at the right time, and

·         clear and logical ways to implement the advice, and

·         adequate control measures to ensure that no  harm comes to features to be retained.

2.         In BS5837 the time when the arboricultural advice is required has been mapped onto the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) work stages: the arboricultural method statement that is submitted with the application is to be submitted simply as heads of terms, an acknowledgment that the detail of the application may change as it is considered by the local planning authority.   Once planning permission has been granted then the project arboriculturist will be expected from to produce the full arboricultural method statement.

3.         The table below is taken from Annex B of BS5837 and refers to the nature and level of detail of information required of the project arboriculturist at particular stages of the planning process:

Stage of process	Minimum detail	Additional information
Pre-application (RIBA Work Plan stages A – D)	Tree survey	Tree retention/removal plan (draft)
Planning application (RIBA Work Plan stage D)	Tree survey (in the absence of pre-application discussions) Tree retention/removal plan (finalized) Retained trees and RPAs shown on proposed layout Strategic hard and soft landscape design, including species and location of new tree planting Arboricultural impact assessment	Existing and proposed finished levels Tree protection plan Arboricultural method statement – heads of terms Details for all special engineering within the RPA and other relevant construction details
Reserved matters / planning condition	Alignment of utility apparatus (including drainage), where outside the RPA or where installed using a trenchless method Dimensioned tree protection plan Arboricultural method statement – detailed Schedule of works to retained trees, e.g. access facilitation pruning Detailed hard and soft landscape design	Arboricultural site monitoring schedule Tree and landscape management plan Post-construction remedial works Landscape maintenance schedule

---

[1] BSI. 2012. BS 5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations. British Standards Institution, London, UK

A guest pulpit

I am very pleased to announce that I have been offered a platform by Pip Howard info@paysagedurable.com and will be letting off steam there in the next couple of days.

Nailing jelly to the wall

I was at two good meetings at the Arboricultural Association’s new headquarters yesterday, both dealing with a pan-industry project that will offer a range of benefits to all the stakeholders.

The first was to present a concept to the Arborists’ Working Group, they bought into the idea and so for the second meeting a much smaller team went off to the playpen (thanks Andy Poynter!) to begin to put flesh onto the bones.

The underlying idea appears to be simple, but in the past taking the idea forward bore all the hallmarks of nailing jelly to the wall.   This time round there are a number of external actors that appear to be encouraging the project, some are looming on the horizon, others have added some immediacy and urgency to the task, as well as an increased possibility of success.

Much to be done in a relatively short time to create a structure for the project, then it can be populated by willing volunteers!