daltontrees

Ginkgo is dioecious, get a male plant and yuo'll never have the smell issue.

You only need to notify things that otherwise would be an offence - topping, lopping, uprooting, wilful damage or wilful destruction. If you are satisfied that all these potential offences will be avoided, there's nothing to notify.

Meripilus giganteus for sure. Commonly decays the underside of structural roots. You have the possibility of whole tree failure there. You really ought to have that looked at properly, but going by the pics it's just a matter of time, unless by some fluke it is perfectly balanced and not exposed to winds. Getting it reduced or taken down while it is still climbable could reduce the costs of an otherwise tricky removal. Can't necessarily assume your insurance woudl cover you if it wiped out your shed, or worse.

could be a long while before this is a problem. Dryad Saddle rarely a cause ot panic on Sycamore, it's pretty slow moving. In your situation, it would be possble to bring forward occlusion of the wound by CAREFULLY chiseling off the excess deadwood of the stub to get it as close as possible to the advancing woundwood. Just around the edges.

Blank!😬

The Council should be reminded as many times as necessary that it's not an 'application' (it's a notification) and it doesn't need to be 'validated', there is in fact no statutory validation requirement or process. Likewise it can't be refused. But quite rightly a Council should say if it considers that the notification does not meet the requirements. An important distinction between CA notifications and TPO applications is that the latter must give reasons for the proposed works, but tehr is no statutory requirement for CA notices to give reasons. Peronally as a matter of educating the Council and avoiding delays for my customer or client I'd tell the Council that, and be clear that they're not getting any supporting report, and that the 6 weeks clock is running down. CAs are an imposition on landowners and the tree protection is precautionary only. Notification is meant to be easy and free.

I'd put money on it being Sorbus or one of those newfangled Aria/Torminalis efforts. No way it's Acer, Tilia or Betula

There is nothing specific about this in legislation, and I am not aware of any case law. The LPA has 2 roles. It has to decide if the trees are important enough to be protected, this can be relevant to trees on and off site. If important they should be retained and protected. BS5837 etc blah blah. What is questionable is whether it should be protecting what amounts to encroachment and possible common law nuisance. It also has to decide whether the CA tree is so important for the amenity of the area that it should be TPOd. The reason is that generally a planning application replaces the need for a separate CA notification or TPO application. So it could TPO the tree and prevent any development that would harm it. This could exceed the RPA, which is really just a temporary made up thing that only preserves about 1/4 of the roots. Remember, CAs don't imply the trees are important. It's jsut a precaution to allow the LPA to decide if they are in the context of any threat to their remvoal or harm.

You're right, but if it's not about trees I'm just not interested. There are a million other places I can be passively subjected to polarised vitriolic drivel.

There are a couple of threads where a few people are being unbelievably rude to each other, churning out some fairly vile stuff. I simply ignore these and concentrate on the bits of Arbtalk that are about trees. SO simple.

It's not clear Are you saying 'development is taking PLACE on the adjacent land'? Are both sides of the boundary in a CA?

Have a look at the attached chart of hybrids. Not even a complete list. Dirty stop-outs, the lot of them. willow hybrids.pdf

Looks pure goat. But it's a messy genus.

Almost 100% it's goat willow (salix caprea)

British Mycological Society has recently been discussing various Phaeolus finds on Sorbus. Incidentally, Sorbus intermedia has recently been reclassified as Scandosorbus intermedia.

No-one can answer this completely. Perhaps there is just a vague fear of shrinkable clay issues. For heave, there is such a combination of factors that ALL have to be present that it is statistically unlikely. If the surveyor is in possession of all the facts (geology, foundation depths, history, tree species/age/distances) nothing we can say is of any use. If he isn't, then we don't have the facts and nothing we can say is of any use.

If you pass your PTI you might be in a for a bit of a shock when you start doing surveys, its a bit like passing your driving test then getting into a car on your own and straight onto a busy motorway. The question is what are you doing surveys for? If it is risk surveys then alll you fundamentally need is a dot to show where the tree is and maybe a splodge to show where groups are. Millions of chap ways of doing that. If you're doing development surveys , anything short of CAD mappig with accurate protrayal of posiiton, 4 way crown spread and root protecton areas will be worse than useless. For a start, the client will usually send you a CAD site plan to use and to add your data to. There is an interpla between how cheap your maps are, how good they are, how easy to use in the field, how easy in teh office, and how helpful they are to clients. You coud steal OS mapping from the internet, print it out, take it on a clipboard and mark trees with a pen. At the other end of the spectrum you can buy or use CAD OS or topo survey drawings, put them on a GPS device, plot accurately in the field with facilites to record heights diameters etc, take these to office and download and present in reports and export modified CAD to client. The latter is best and most expensive but also most effcient and most useful to client, but the initial set-up costs only pay dividends after several uses. I use PT Mapper, QCAD and Pocket GIS and I am probably at the equivalent of £1 a report by now.

Depends what software you are using. OS Vectormap in CAD is dirt cheap but lacks fine detail, I have used it for large rural estates. Mastermap usually out of the question for anything big.

High Hedges bring out the worst.

Sorry to be a pain , but have you got the right legislation there? 1986 Act only allowed for restocking on conviction.

The phrase "simmering resentment" comes to mind. No-one likes a freeloader.

Getting into specifics here without the relevant dimensions. Private message sent.

That's never going to work. All bits of the 'hedge' are going to affect all 3 properties, not just the bits on their boundary.. There will be a single speciefication that gives all at least the minimum daylighting. Some will exceed it. Property 4 may not wish to lose any more than absolutely necessary. It's inevitable that property 4 has to invite opinions then offer a compromise single solution with or without requirements for contributions. If all agree, good. If just one refuses, do nothing.

The legislation is different in different parts of the UK. The deciduous content can have only one of a few effects on the outcome. Firstly if they are the majority of the hedge, it doesn't qualify for a High Hedge notice, no matter how bad the shade. Secondly if it is a high hedge the deciduous content will give the neighbour some relief from shade in the winter. This can be significant but will not be percevied as such, especially for sunlight. Thirdly if there is a high hedge notice it most certainly can be part of the actions to have it reduced. It is the effect on enjoyment that matters, not that it is deciduous. Which way it goes is matter of degree. Mostly to do with height. It's not a binary decision. Mixed hedges are impossible to predict. The HHLL calculation is not appropriate for most situations and makes no sense for partly deciduous hedges. It is possible to split the assessment, for example assess only the laurels and ignores trees amongst them. Rather poorly written legisaltion, badly written guidance and generally poor understanding of the technical issues by Councils and Reporters. Bit of a lottery really.

What country are you in?