daltontrees

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?

That growth is Cerioporus squamosus. Yes decay has set in. Early days and not a fast mover. Maybe a decade or so before structrual integrity is compromised. Worrying about tree decay is pointless, you can't stop it. Worrying about harm or damage to people or property is a different matter. You haven't given any context, so the risk can't be assessed.

Worried about what, exactly? And I mean 'exactly'.

I have a 130 year old disc of it somewhere, rock solid, no splits even after 5 years of drying. Almost unsandable too.

POssibly better in wet (live) wood. I've never done 60cm, longest is 40cm. But I have wrecked one going through 2 x 3" very hard old joists.

In my experience when they go downhill it's almost free-fall. Never known one to bounce back. It's like an almost complete shutdown of their vascular system.

Auger bit, obviously. A helical bit will just use up all your battery warming the wood around the hole. Experience of drilling railway sleepers says be careful against hitting tough wood like buried branch stubs, I nearly broke my wrist when the drill kept rotating but the bit stopped dead. Ideally you need the hole to be not much bigger than the bolt, so keeping the hole straight is crucial. Quite a big ask over 2 feet. Can be awkward up a tree with sometimes no way of pushing on the drill. Use a bit with a small threaded pilot tip they really drag the bit into the wood.

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.