Amelanchier

A lot depends on the resources of the duty holder. It may not be reasonable for the retailer to prevent people being idiots if there are enough of them... IMO it is reasonable to expect that a tree worker does not knowingly create a hazard even if the employer (homeowner) wants him to against his professional judgement. The tree owner cannot absolve you of your duty of care, thats for the courts to decide. Would you put the gob in a tree and leave it for the owner to backcut if he told you he would sign a disclaimer for your liability?

Regarding the caveat / disclaimer thing - I'm not sure this would carry any weight... You can't sign away your duty of care even if the customer agrees. Negligence is negligence. This is the same issue as you'll see in car parks - items left at owners risk etc. Not true, the car park managers (or tree workers) have a duty of care towards the users of the site and their possessions (or trees). This obviously relates to foreseeable events that it is reasonable to prevent (e.g., it's not reasonable to expect 24 hr armed response units for car thieves or ninja valets, but appropriate lighting and no broken bottles is). It might be argued that subsquent limb failure can be expected to be more likely after the proposed work.

Are you powering up your bionic laser eyes there? Ready to vaporise the disc before it can hit the gound...

Looks like Golden Rain Tree / Pride of India to me - Koelreuteria paniculata

Or not. Google reveals your sources sir and they are not credible. The must likely explanation of the trees current english common name - remembering of course that it was only introduced to the UK in 1596 (and therefore only recieved its english name some time after the aforementioned alledged events) - is that it is a corruption of its earlier french name Arbre de Judée meaning tree of Judea (relating to its native region).

Don't forget to glue some fangs to it as well. It needs to be both poisonous and dangerous because a single adjective won't convey the sheer terror of the imaginary situation.

Ha ha - "They fear that it may have been created by a poisonous or dangerous spider not from this country that owners need to have a special licence to keep." Sound journalistic principles there - bringing expert views to the masses. She'll go far... I can hear the footsteps of the Daily Mail headhunters as I type. Prolly Ermine moths.

As any toxicologist will tell you - the poison is in the dose. Even oxygen will kill you at the right level of exposure. The OP asked about copper nails... No chance IMO. However, if would-be tree killers want to persist in their use - let them. Their ignorance is my bliss.

Why would copper kill a tree? Does it somehow magically overcome CODIT? Or catalyse some systemic cambial shut down? Nonsense. The nail punctures the xylem/phloem and allows air into the vascular system, shutting transport off. The embolism area is compartmentalised and the tree shrugs off another minor wound. Next... I wonder, given that it is an offence to attempt to commit a offence under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 - hammering in copper nails to a TPO tree should attract a more significant penalty than unauthorised works even though the effort is futile?

Aaahhh but replant with what? Fell and replant is only half a spec...

Hard to say Andy. I vauguely remember a rule of thumb involving twice the diameter but I can't find the source. The 2008 draft revised BS3998 suggests the following with regard to materials but declines to be definitive on position: Annex G Support for weak structures G.1 General One of two types of rod should be used when providing support bracing within a tree: a) Threaded rod: a metal bar threaded along its length with a wood screw thread should be screwed into a lead hole 1 mm to 2 mm smaller in diameter than the rod and extending into sound wood either side of the structural weakness for at least half the diameter of the second stem/branch. This form of rod should be used only where the wood is free from decay. After screwing the rod into the lead hole excess metal should be cut off flush with the bark; b) Bolt, nuts and washers: a long, unthreaded metal shank should be placed through a predrilled hole 1 mm to 2 mm larger than its diameter. The ends of the rod should be threaded with a metal screw so that they can be secured as appropriate with washers and nuts. The washers should be counter-sunk to the cambium and the nuts should be secured to hold the parts of the tree together. This treatment should be used for soft wooded species, e.g. Populus spp, Salix spp and Aesculus spp. Washers should be at least 2½ times the diameter of the bolt. Yep. Standard six weeks notice under S211.

Bolt it. She won't mind.

I think that's probably a historic mistake. Its natural size and aforementioned branch pullout issues make it a bad tree to hang yourself from! Now Cedar of Lebanon, thats more likely to be Mr Iscariots tree of choice.

Spot on James. Nice trees normally, have a slight tendancy to exhibit branch pullout failures but they rarely get big enough to be a problem. The heart shaped leaves are the giveaway when they are not in flower (they occaisionally flower directly off the stem) - the only other large shrubby/tree thing that you might encounter that looks similar is the Katsura tree (Cercidiphyllum japonicum) which has opposite buds.

Conservation Areas are funny old things. Its essential to remember (as has already been said) that you are not asking for consent or applying for works - you are giving notice of your intent. This is because the way the legislation is phrased, undertaking works to protected trees within a Conservation Area (CA) is an offence of strict liability (you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent). However, the legislation lists appropriate defences to prosecution These require that you served notice of your intention (with "sufficient particular to identify the tree") to the relevant LPA and that this either resulted in i) Consent by the LPA (i.e., Yep, seen enough, get on with it) ii) The expiry of six weeks from the date of the notice but before the expiry of two years. This give the LPA six weeks to TPO the tree if they consider that the proposed works would be detrimental to the local amenity. The same exemptions that apply to TPOs (actionable nuisance, dangerous, dead) apply to CA trees but whereas a TPO will still apply to the space even if the tree is removed, the way CA legislation is written, if the tree falls into these categories (or is too small a diameter) - the protection simply does not apply. Which is odd because there is an obligation to replant where a tree is removed under an exemption... Anyhow, back to the original query. It is the date you gave notice that starts the clock so if you post something, it is the date recieved that counts. Most LPAs are reasonable and use the date sent though they are not obliged to - they don't recieve the information until the letter or email is opened so they cannot be expected to implement their duty under other parts of the law. This is also the same principle applied when considering objections to TPOs; it would be unfair to use the date that the items were sent out to start the 28 day window, especially if the are postal strikes for example. Basically, it is up to you to prove that you gave notice because all tree work to protected trees in a CA is an offence, unless you prove yourself innocent. The legislation isn't fair, but then what is? Emails and read reciepts are an excellent way of doing this.

I would like to think planting is going to become more important. Why on earth do we let landscapers call the shots alone when it comes to tree selection and establishment? We're the specialists right? As far as I can tell, developers (most of them at least!) still scrimped on landscaping/planting and continued to think of existing trees as an afterthought or liability when times were good. Now there's less money around we need stronger planners and enforcement to ensure that standards don't fall away. Can't see that happening with the savings needed from local government.

Some of us do that already...

Sigh. Just to reiterate again to the persistant offenders and to those who are new to the site. Swearing is swearing even if its spelt sw***ing; I for one will simply be deleting posts that break the forum rules. If the poster can't be bothered to choose the appropriate words then neither can I. Over and out.

Just recieved notice of this from the NTSG via the UKTC neither of whom I'm sure will mind me reposting it in full here; The National Tree Safety Group have launced a consultation on their guidance document: The consultation (an on-line questionnaire) on the NTSG Guidance document " Bringing Common Sense to Tree management - Guidance on trees and public safety in the UK for owners, managers and advisers" will go live at 13.30 today - Friday May 21st 2010 and run until June 21st 2010. The following link Forestry Commission - National Tree Safety Group - Guidance will give access to the consultation along with the draft guidance document and the NTSG Position Statement - the latter explains more about the group and its approach. The Consultation can also be accessed through the NTSG website http://www.ntsg.org.uk in the guidance section. Do please publicise the consultation and pass on these links to your members, colleagues and appropriate contact networks. Many thanks Judith Judith Webb Chair NTSG Please contribute your thoughts ladies and gents.

Doh. Screwed my calender up and won't be making it tomorrow. Have a good one guys and gals.

That looks like a fairly run of the mill pendula to me! Daft trees.

The latter IMHO. Just think of all those normal latent buds in that new wood. You'd have to mueller it past the point of reasonableness to beat them and it would still revert in the regrowth.

Sorry missed your reply Scott. I guess if you're going for manual input to obtain a better shape then you've addressed my greatest concern. If you get a spare moment and a normal tree (should such a thing exist), check the difference in the results out between the standard circle vs the proper shape - watch the residual wall grow or the off centre defect disappear! Magic! When speccing PICUS test I tend to include a requirement for the use of calipers or at least that submitted quotes must include a methodology for its use.

http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/tree-health-care/3802-evolution-individual-trees.html

An example of the genetic mosaic model perhaps? I'd find a link if I wasn't browsing on my phone...