Amelanchier

Keep it up guys - cracking shots. Its going be a tough call for that commitee...

Probably more interesting if you tell us what the problem is? I seem to spend my entire life regurgitating BS5837...

Fine. And kids are the next generation of tree owners! It's good to have them playing around trees. Though perhaps not so good to have dad screwing things into those trees Difficult to evaluate without being out on site but you might affect the way in which the limb moves in high winds. This might have an effect on its ability to distribute wind energy along its length which might increae the liklihood of failure. Then again it might just snap your telegraph pole one day! Wilful damage is a prosecutable offence. Bad news. As a rule of thumb - avoid any excavation under the canopy! Just as much of a toss up with members of the public!

Er what you mean is you suspect they'll make you take you zipline and treehouse down so you'd rather not have to ask them! Are the stilts set in concrete or is it all resting on the ground?? So definately not your tree then! Sounds fine to me in principle(!) This sounds like a section 106 agreement to me. Well, as one of those council bods, I can only speak for myself but I wouldn't have a problem with what you've done. I'd want to see exactly how you attached the pole but I doubt there would be a problem Well you don't have a viable standpoint or arguement. Its a third party protected tree. You're not going to get prosecuted but what you need to do is speak to the Local Authority and come clean. Perhaps a better design would involve a long loop of 8mm cable fixed to the floor around the limb with the zipline fixed to the loop? Us council types don't all wear ties, we don't all love the rules, and we don't want to stop kids enjoying mucking about around trees! Welcome to the forum BTW

1. Sounds right - note that you would have to bring a civil case. 2. As above, but as has been pointed out this is the biggie. 3. Technically correct, except what is the value of a conifer top?!? 4. Nah don't bother. Police won't be interested IMO. Did they do a particulary bad job of the work???

Are they replacements for removed TPO trees???

My comments referred to recently served Area Orders. You're on shaky ground with a 1970 Area Order more or less regardless of evidence!!! Worth noting though none of what you've dug up requires an LPA to review Area Orders - its all just guidance. Which is why we are were we are.

Indeed. Area orders are next to worthless once they're about 5 years old! They're a pain for tree owners, tree managers/workers and tree officers. But in an emergency situation - noting beats them for sheer land grabbing potential (except prehaps a woodland as Yorkshireman indicates)!!! IIRC the Batho report indicated to LPAs that Area designations should be resurveyed and modified within 2 years (i'll have to go and check that now) When we make large Area Orders we tend to take a billion photos. With statute law and strict liability on our side that is often all we need - if there is a tree in a picture taken on the date of serving and one day its gone the onus is on the landowner to prove he didn't commit an offence! My point about the detailed tree plotting within an Nepia's Area Order is that if the TO had gone to the trouble of plotting all the individuals and groups within the Area - why confirm it as an Area!?!?!?! He's already surveyed it?!?!?!?

Thing is - there is no such thing as a 'blanket' TPO. It's a misleading misnomer. If you have an Area Order, which it certainly sounds like you do, it would be odd and unesseccary to mark the individual trees... As you say "any tree of whatever species" that was present in 1973!

There are four main designations within modern Orders. Individual, Group, Woodland and Area. A single Order might be composed of any combination of these designations. The term blanket could refer to either an Area Order or a Woodland Order. If its the former - newly planted trees are not protected (unless they are replacements). If its the latter - a Woodland Order then newly planted trees would be covered.

Colleague passed me this today, apologies for the copy-of-a-copy-of-a-copy quality but you'll get the idea!!! Published in 1975!! Nothing changes! The Trees of Wimbledon.pdf

Holy Machined Aluminium Batman!

Huh, did I say that? - oh yes that's right, the "committee" will choose. Whoever they are...

And the winner is Stevie! Well done mate - that ice cream tub captured the living essence of the season of rebirth and light. Cheques made payable to: Tony 'The Big Fix' Sorensen

Ah Peter, you can ask any questions but he didn't say he'd answer them. Cunning.

On the contrary - thank you. Looking for subbie work? Whereabouts in Norwich are you based???

Nice, was that to create a particular niche??

Climatic factors switching genes off and triggering dimorphism...?

After leaning back in my comfy chair and looking at that basal adaptive growth I'd guess that you have some selective delignification going on...

Doesn't sound stupid to me. Sounds like an example of adaptation... Maybe this propensity for grafting crossing limbs which allows larger limbs (that would otherwise fail) to be sustained, has give Beech an advantage??? I would suggest that if it is an adaptation, it would only be exhibited in longer lived species where such a protracted means of retaining an investment (i.e., a branch!) would have a value. I wouldn't expect to see such an event in a pioneer species...

Thats a proper Rhody!!! Where's my gold star?? Is it in the post???

Was it taken in Spring? If so then I don't seen why not!

Easy days... Cunninghamia lanceolata Giveaway is the autumn debris on the deck in the back of the shot! Those Rhodys in your photo look pretty substantial!!!!!!

Distinct lack of trees there Stevie - nevertheless you are currently second!