daltontrees

The civil law is applied almost entirely according to the reasonability of people. You won't be able to rig every tiny bit, some stuff will end up on her land. You don't need permission to be in her airspace if it's necessary for safety or it's the only means possible. So a really good investment for the fuuire would be to ask for access to tidy up. Ideally in writing. If it's not granted, crack on. Do everything you reasonably can to avoid damage or dropping debris. The law will then be on your side.

Maybe a matter of semantics here but are you saying that prosecution (wilful damage or destruction) strictly speaking is only on indictment whereas lesser works (lopping, topping etc.) not likely to destroy are punishable by fines on summary convictions (1990 Act s210(4)) and therefore aren't 'prosecution'?

Solar panels work on daylight, so although better in in sunlight they still work on cloudy days.

There's the basic problem with cabling. Cabled trees almost certainly come to depend on the cables, and don't put on adequate new wood to support their own loads any more. In my view cabling or other forms of bracing shouldn't be used unless failure will happen without it. So once it's put in place there's no chance of branch survival without it. Less than before it was added. You could replace the cable with COBRA, if and when the cleats look like they're too corroded. Best done in winter when leaf load is off, and you may have to winch the limb back a tad to loosen the cable and add the COBRA. I've only replaced smallish bracing but it seemed the right thing to do to get the new cable exactly the same length as the old. This has got to be much much easier with cobra than with cable.

I didn't see the flowers. I'm revising my guess to Eleagnus ebbingei.

I'm pretty sure it's a holm oak Quercus ilex.

Something similar to this came up on another group (British Tree officers and Tree Consultants). The consensus was (and backed by plenty of published studies) that crown reduction has to be very very substantial before it willl reduce water uptake. Talking over 50%, closer to 70%. And the effect would only be temporary. So I don't know what the 6m height reduction is expected to achieve, but if it's a reduction in shrinkage it wont. Maybe if it's done every year till the end of time it might make a significant difference. Proving or disproving it would be almost impossible

I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me, but all I was saying is that plants have evolved an elegant mechanism to poison herbivores by managing to store 2 components of the poison separately and mixing them only when herbivores (or tree surgeons) attack. Sort of like how epoxy resin comes in 2 liquids that combine within minutes to go rock solid. I believe Wikipedia on this. It's not always right but a lot of people (myself included) have taken time to refine it and correct it carefully. The Amydgalin entry is typical, it looks like it has been written honetly by a scientist then edited by someone who has an agenda about Laetrile.

It gets better. According to Wikipedia "Within [Prunus] plants, amygdalin and the enzymes necessary to hydrolyze it [i.e. cause it to release hydrogen cyanide] are stored in separate locations, and only mix as a result of tissue damage. This provides a natural defense system."

|Wikipedia is pretty good on this. Amygdalin - Wikipedia EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG Basically, amygdalin breaks down to form among other things cyanide, And rather alarmingly "Eating amygdalin will cause it to release cyanide in the human body, and may lead to cyanide poisoning." And also mentioned is "Benzaldehyde released from amygdalin provides a bitter flavor.". Sounds like Sea Buckthorn is quite the cocktail of pungent stuff.

No, that's hydrogen cyanide.

Pretty rude. Certainly not helpful. Like you don't understand why people ask for help from fellow professionals.

Sycamore Eutypella parasitica? Bit of a long shot in the UK?

I have noted that in my attempts to transplant it from a seaside location to my guerilla garden it hasn't liked being near hawthorn, pyracantha or even in long grass/ribwort. It gets dosed with road salt, somehow I thought it would like it.

It's tough stuff, cut it back and it'll be fine, quite hard to get rid of if anything.

Four points. Firstly house boats are not being 'targeted', they are being added to the controls that exist for buildings. Secondly they are only controlled when moored in a Smoke Control Area. Thirdly, it doesn't threaten 'British' boat dwellers, it only applies to England. Fourthly, it is only an offence to emit smoke or to burn a fuel type that is not of an 'approved' type. Not quite as dramatic as the headlines.

I reiterate, unless you say where this is no-one can help. Why? Because in some areas there aren't shrinkable clay soils or persistent soil moisture deficits that could cause subsidence or heave damage. Why worry about these until you know the local soil type? And as usual the original poster has disappeared. All a big fat waste of time.

A standard road width is 7.3m, 24 feet. That just leaves room for 3 feet clear on either side. Here in Scotland the Roads Act allows the roads authority to plant 'within the boundaries of the public road' which includes verges. There is a general prohibition against planting within 5 metres of the edge of the road itself.

Tree Species Soil Volume Guide - GreenBlue Urban GREENBLUE.COM Initially published in 2019, the GreenBlue Urban Tree Species Soil Volume Guide was a brave attempt to give specifiers a... Dangb93 covers it. The tree pit shouldn't really have to be much bigger than the rootball or container, as long as the roots are going to be able to penetrate and use the surrounding soil. The green blue urban guide is about final voume. However, I have noted in the past that if you compare it with the volume implied by the root protection area in BS5837, the GBU volume is inadequate.

Ahh, different in Scotland.

Yep, Google allows many varying half-truths to spill forth to a worry-prone society. One can always find one that fits an argument.

Sometimes they are not adopted until they get to a public area. The position of the blockage is not described, if it's in the neighbour's garden it might not be adopted.

If this is going to get acrimoniuos and expensive, best not discuss it on a public forum. Two things are needed, straying roots and a defective drain. Generally it's not the type of thing that's foreseeable. There's also no way that you could have know that your tree in particular is causing damage. Indeed, you couldn't have known there was daamge. But I'd steer clear of admitting that "sewer pipes laid by council builders would probably not be in the best state of repair", as that comes close to acknowledging that you should have foreseen susceptibility to blockage. That said, a properly specified and constructed sewer shouldn't allow roots in. There are rare exceptions to this. Might be best to start from the position that responsibility for blockage lies predominantly or wholly with whoever allowed the drain to fall into disrepair enough to allow roots to enter. But tread carefully, the disrepair (not the blockage) might start at your property. If it's on the neighbour's property, it shouldn't be your problem. The law of nuisance, negligence and foreseeability issurprisingly complex, with no absolutes. It is certainly not a 'strict liability' situation. Eucalyptus is rarely a good idea in urban settings.

No Council has the right to stick rigidly to the 12x DBH RPA. Trees don't read guidelines, they go where they find favourable growing conditions. The relevant British Standard says tha thte RPS should be drawn initially as a circle, but then should be modified to reflect underground condiitons. In my experience rooting near roads and footways are nearly never radial. Correction, never. The Standard says that the assessment of root distribution must be done by an arboriculturist. Neither they with their simplistic rule nor you can justify the RPA being circular or any alternative shape. Point 2 is that the RPA is not the same as the area within which roots cna be found. The latter is always bigger than the former. A trench may help to demonstrate something or other, and if it showed up no roots then you have the proof you need. If you find roots you don't know if they're important enough to avoid. They might be deep enough to bridge over. Their loss might be tolerable. Not simple.

Thanks for doing this, it's really reassuring to see the tree managing the wound. Numerous myths are being dispelled as we watch.