Bundle 2

"Looks genuine to me." I thought so too..... Like Skyhuck suggests.....give him a call?

Hey...the deal is "no chainsaw above shoulder height"-NPTC .....It could be a real nightmare frankly if it is as overgrown as I think it could be from your comments...leaving you struggling to wrestle alot to the ground-may not be so bad if you are doing whole parcels as opposed to selective perhaps....Ditto the telehandler..... Have you considered the grants that are available for deer exclusion fencing from the F.C atall buddy?

A definition... Stochastic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Further research includes the comparison of 3 techniques... 02Nic.pdf

For anyone who attended the Barchams seminar yesterday..... Smiley is well respected and here is an overview of the Picus.... I am just waiting to unearth the work by Frank Rinn we talked about. In particular I notice the comments about seeing "irregular" patterns of decay- Picus-Gilbert.pdf

An extensive resource ....there is such a wealth of information out there I am constantly being reminded....good ol' t'internet:tongue_smilie: Environmental Horticulture Department - College of Agricultural and Life Sciences - Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Edit: damn, whilst I am at it..... http://www.treelink.org/joa/

Interesting...phototropic/geotropic...they could both perhaps said to be in play....more the phototropism imo, as canopy growth and design is a complex equation that results in horizontal extension aswell, for maximum leaf area exposure......the end result is towards light...not the sky by default.....make sense?

Giles...FWIW, I would not have concerns about the "lifting" on the root plate on its own....It looks to be a well seasoned adjustment....If it wasnt for the lean, I would certainly attribute the feature to level/grade changes.....? I would recommend reading the download available from this site... entitled...."Biomechanical Optimisation" for more information....! I fact, Ill try to remember to post the root plate of a large, mature beech near to me for comparison....cheers.

Lee.....try these...found simply in the first search I made!! AKA Ecology /environmental inpact assessments...Often carried out by environmental consultants who are then advised by arborists re the trees as I understand it cos they dont get the whole tree thing.....but this is not by any means a given...I suppose it depends on the scale of the site and or assessment....? Hey, I hope it is of some help? arboricultura; impact assessment - Google Search

"Anyone else notice the irony in Scooter's post?? " Didint notice a thing mate......

I realise that section 211 is not a TPO...However I was thinking along the lines that it is reasonable to extrapolate similarities or draw parallels from it being a land charge. from there being conditions active (based on permissions) and the legal status of, for example, works.....given the none too clear nature of misadministration thus far...it was this question that got me to thinking of this thread... "So did the council, by deciding the felling also decide the tree was exempt and was the prunning to make safe (less work) exempt also? " "Judicial review's perhaps a bit harsh at this stage..... maybe further on down the line in order to pick apart the legalities concerning the maladministration of the relevant statutes, (as you say) SHOULD the LPA insist on felling..... but IMO you DEFINATELY have cause to start making a few noises with the Local Govt. Ombudsman, with regards to the manor in which the TO has acted." Andy -seems about right. Perhaps I make more of the legal conflicts than necessary...

At the risk of muddying the waters...( not possible you think) Well done managing to extract the necessary coherence in this thread as the situation is not easy to explain without keeping it simple; and in so doing some of the more convoluted legal implications a bit glossed over....No criticism here folks..BUT. Im not sure if some of the original questions were addressed as they appear in the first post....(? ) In this regard. here is a link that I hope will illuminate at least some of them as I saw it.... Section 211 Notices - Tree Owner's refusal to allow works cheers.

"Ultimately, as you say - notice would have to be given of intent. This is quite different from a letter telling an occupant to fell a tree!" The point is surely that said notice affords the owner/client the opportunity to seek counsel on a course of action that would oppose the notice ( in part or in full) I give up....this is clearly way past this in this case already.

From what you are saying Topcat, and frankly, it is not all that clear from the posts so far tbh; the T.O. appears to know neither tree physiology nor the legislation. What a nightmare! Perhaps he/she is a student on work placement...i wonder where they find these genii sometimes! "What you have to remember is that Tree Officers are not covered by professional indemnity insurance" Absolutely wrong mate...why would you think they wouldnt need insurance like everyone else?

Lab innoculations are a bit "iffy" I reckon...my tuppence worth!

Mmmm... Andy @ Treelife made the comment that he could see no other reason why brackets would be with pores/gills underside other than waterproofing...... I have to say I disagree as gravity needs to play its part in dispersion in the initial stages too.....! I wonder what effect saturation in the pore layer, as described in the images above, would have on spore release? Unless it is run off from rain...Mostly we see droplets on the top surface I think? Not having a go...should learn to "think out loud" to myself...sorry!!

"Tree drying up it's host..." Can you elucidate David?

What can I say? Just seems so much easier to close the road. Ive worked these type of trees; pruning, take downs WHU. Communication nightmares even with radios and traffic controls..you name it. Its just so much easier to close the freaking road and get it done than faff about making life twice as difficult for yourself....Still, if you wanna show off Dean, just fell it down the footpath...cant see a problem man!

Sunday, road closed number I guess...unless you got room for zip line away from the road...but you still need to close the road imo. Why do you say terminal canopy decline....? Its not the canopy decline that is terminal; more that canopy decline with merip is a "fair" indication that root function is impaired and of stability becoming an ever increasing concern. Well spotted all the same mate. Not a likely candidate for reduction and see what happens eh! Dont forget those lovely people at Alice Lodge might just be interested enough to come and grind it out for you- all in the name of science you understand.

"Meripilus giganteus on roadside Beech................. Ooh err ! " Nah...dont worry about it mate......BTW...not much flare on that beech or is it the picture angle perhaps...?

They are fooked- move the footpath and leave well alone if poss!!

Not an exhaustive list by any means. But if you want to know who wrote what, when and where it appears... biblio.pdf

What else can you do I suppose?

No its not you man....! Listening/talking with J.Danahay (Planning Portal ) it becomes clear that the portal is designed by "it boffs"; so not arborists then. This is what was meant by "in the pipeline". Whilst it seems the government needs to consult with its user base, it is very frustrating that those designing the portal never use it ( mostly...) and certainly have little or no grasp/interest in the vagaries of legislation that is applicable.....Dont worry about it? Its a bit disappointing IMO. I think it could be very easily updated to eliminate the issue, which is a common complaint I believe. They got bigger fish to fry down there in gov.uk land for the time being.....!

"How anybody could object to this work is totally beyond me!..." Read the articles and you will see that the objections are NOT at remedial tree work, such as you describe.....Likewise I dont see why gradual and constant incursions into ancient woodland, in an urban environment is appropriate when it is in conflict with a public footpath and such, on the basis that the land owner is a known developer and Tesco wants another 12 parking spaces.....but hey. Perhaps Im way out of touch !!