daltontrees

Currently getting by with QCAD ($40 perpetual). Some of the recommendations I got were not quite what I need. A lot of CAD packages are massive and complex, whereas I just need 2D site plans and dxf compatibility. The real issue seems to be that dxfs are not used much any more and the format hasn't been updated for years. But I am stuck with it because I use PT Mapper and Pocket GIS. The one problem remains, PT Mapper rejects or messes up some layers from dxfs that have originated as dwgs. Developers regulary throw drawings across that have shadings and hatching and bespoke symbols for cars, trees, whirlygigs, paviours etc. and these do not convert or if they do you end up with a dwg expanded form 4mb to a dxf at 40mb.

There's nothing new in this, it's PTI, not Professional Tree Risk Assessment. NTSG zooms out and sets the context of risk management. Tree inspectors are not decision makers or risk managers, they make recommendations. Daily, completely unqualified but occasionally experienced tree surgeons make quasi-risk recommendations to customers without any systematic basis, and within days whole trees are removed. If any change is needed to PTI it is to make it clear to candidates that it is not tree risk assessment. Where the industry takes it from there is a different matter. Like when you get recommendations and a price from a builder for your extension, the public seem happy with it this way. The furure about the proposed tree risk BS was some sort of evidence of that.

Bleeding canker (Pseudomonas syringae pv. aesculi) for sure. Pretty much irrecoverable and as Paul says ther will be honey fingus on the way to finish the job off. Looks like a bit of leaf miner on the go too.

If it's not brittle it's not Kretz

Basal flares suggest individual trees.

The boundary shoudn't fundamentally affect the Council's decision. It is the tree that is TPO'd not the land. It is it's importance to the amenity of the area that matters, regardless of where the boundary beneath it is. That said, if the tree is encroaching into a neighbouring property and is a 'legal 'nuisance' i.e. doing damage or preventing reasonable use of the encraoched land, it can be cut back without Council permission, but only enough to prevent or abate the nuisance. If it's a lesser situation than that, like ALL TPO appications the applicant HAS to give reasons for the work. You haven't said if he has done this or what the reasons are. But as others have said, if the neighbour has no right to the land over which it is suposedly encroaching he has no right ot cut it whether it has TPO consent or not.

The cost pays for the development and publication of Standards. I have used my 5837 Standard for about 800 paid reports. That's 25p a report. The only irritation is that the cost of a Standard is the same whether you use it once or a thousand times. I have the same gripe with AutoCAD. And Adobe. And OS mapping.

Don't hold your breath. There were about 2,500 submitted comments on the draft. Think more in terms of a new version next year or the year after, or possibly a 2nd draft next year.

I don't see a problem with the system, but I perceive ecologists as doing well out of the mystery of it all and generally taking an unduly precautionary position. It's hard to challenge because they just fall back on scaremongering about legislation, their professional duty, their insurer's requirements and the Bat Conservation Trust guidance (which is thorough but not pragmatic).

Depends on definitions but Stage 1 is identifying habitat and potential roost features. Stage 2 is investigating whether they are or have been used.

I am looking for a potential roost features survey on half a dozen trees to be updated. It's on Mull. I did a climbing inspection last time to get a closer look at a couple of features but this time it could possibly be done from the ground. If so, 10 minutes on site. Anyone in the area able to help soon? Doesn't need bat license or handling. Not looking for an ecologist to do 20 pages on it and camp out dawn and dusk. Just a pragmatic and proportionate rule-out.

You sell services and goods to customers, you sell advice to clients. Calling customers clients also just makes a contractor look like a bit of a twat

You have the right to see the Order. Council has the right to charge for a copy of it. Most Councils have made it nearly impossble to get to speak to someone. I worked for a Council years ago and you couldn't get any work done for people phoning up and keeping you on the phone for half an hour as they moan about everything they perceive to be wrong about western civilisation. In those days you were obliged to humour them. It was policy to answer the phone within 3 rings, even if it wasn't your phone. I hated it. So I agree with not being able to call someone. But what I now hate is that you have to email customer services and wait for an unknown period (days, weeks, never) for an answer. Meantime the tree is down and through the chipper and composted.

A bike. 8 metres up.

The Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation)(England) Regulations 2012, Regulation 8(c)