daltontrees

Nicely put.

I personally don't think an appeal would get very far.

I just re-read all 11 pages of it. Hard work before breakfast.

The Act says that "If the authority consider ... that the complainant has not taken all reasonable steps to resolve the matters complained of without proceeding by way of such a complaint to the authority ... the authority may decide that the complaint should not be proceeded with." High Hedge cases are rarely nice, but I had one last week where the parties are on first name terms and each have good reason to support their case. An arbiter was therefore needed. These situations are more likely when the guidance (HHLL or equivalent) can't be applied to non-standard layouts, so there is no way of the parties agreeing on what the height outcome would be if a HH notice was applied for. One could argue tha that is what has happened in Gary's case.

The document have been removed from the appeal website, as the case is more thna 6 months old. I have sent a copy directly to you by email.

maybe Pholiota aurivella?

HHLL cannot be used for non-contiguous hedges. It is not only impossible to erfor m the calculation, the whole basis for the method relies on the hedge an garden situation being approximately adjacent because thae's how the model was tested by BRE. You need to fall back on BS8206-2 for light calculations. BRE's 'Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight' gives tools that can be used to apply BS8206-2 to high hedges, with one important exception - skylight to gardens. It covers the other aspects of sunlight to gardens, daylight to buildings and sunlight to buildings. I've developed a method for skylight to gardens which uses the equivalent of a Waldram diagram for sampling points int eh garden, but there is no actual agreed threshold of acceptable garden skylight levels. Can send you a link to a successful scottish appeal that shows it. Meantime onus is on the potential HH applicant to demonstrate adverse effect on reasonable enjoyment. If it's a window argument, they have objective ways of doing it but if it's a garden argument they haven't. Ask what action hedge height they propose and how they arrived at the figure.

Sorry to contradict again, but doesn't that conflict with what you quoted before from the Act i.e. the damage has to be wilful? By the way, the concept of strict liability and the removal of the need to prove mens rea (criminal mind, or more literally translated as the mind of the thing i.e. intent) is much better developed in scots law than in english law.

The one on the south side of Glasgow turned out to be something quite different. The leaves were really quite similar, the fruits I saw last year were about the same, but the bark was very different to the OP's. Back to square one...

I agee that the COG is important but the entire weight of the pice acts through the half hitch attachment point. Anything elevated has 'Potential Energy'. he energy is released when it falls. The energy is equal to mass x distance fallen. See attached modification of original diagram. The distance fallen is A to B plus A to C. A to C is really equal to A to B. So the distance is twice A to B. The energy released is mass x distance, but in this example we are assuming mass is the same whatever the ehights. So basically the amount of energy released by the fall is proportional to distance A to B. The groundie and the capstan and the tree have to absorb it as frictional heat, vibration, muscular effort and occasionally the groundie being moved some distance. The shock and how hard it will be to control how it is let run is proportional to the distance between the block and the half hitch. Te groundie can't do anything to slow it down until the rope goes taut. So the OP is right.

Surely conviction for 'wilful damage' must involve proof of intent? Otherwise the offence would be 'damage'.

I have started to use mixed plastic recycled wood for a project, slightly more expensive than wood but lasts forever. Usually in black, grey or brown. Every shape and size you can imagine, including pointed stakes. There's reinforced boards too. A cheap and quick and effective alternative to kerbing on founds would be boards and stakes, and you cna hand dig to find stake positions that miss any substantial roots then cut boards to suit. I am waiting to see just how big a span I can get between stakes without excessive bulge, the advice so far from Kedel Mixed Plastic Lumber - Kedel.co.uk is 450mm for 40 x 120 unreinforced boards holding loose earth. There always appears to be a gap in the rules. On the one hand you have to apply for anything that you know would damage a tree including its roots (and this means damage during construction AND root suffocation afterwards by inappriopriate surfacing). On the other hand if you crack on without permission, not intending to damge the tree but what you did does damage the tree, you could be prosecuted. The Council might have to show the damage was wilful. For me it would depend if it was my tree or a customer's. And how much of the RPA will be paved over. block paviours are possibly only about 5% permeable, maybe enough for gas exchange but not enough for water and pretty much eliminating future uptake of organic nitrates. I recall that cellweb did an edging that is designed to allow breathing. But if not it recommends that the cellweb be fixed with steel pinsd and if this is done right it should retain the patio a bit against spread, making the job required of the edging much less.

Unbelievable! Lost for words...

Unresearched guesses, Juglans regia, Prunus whocares and Ostrya carpinifolia

I don't doubt you have careful with your words, but that is not the same as them being fair and accurate. You seem to have moved the opinion of 'gross exaggeration' resulting in 'court misunderstanding' ... to ...'gross errors' and 'misled the court'. The former two are opinion, the latter two together seem to me to be accusation of intent by the witnesses. Om the other hand, I did not speculate, I asked a question, affording you the opportunity to retract and get back on track and talk about sometihng other than what everyone by now knows to be your partisan interest in QTRA. You have not retracted, and preversely instead you seem to think that I am having a 'dig'. For the record, if I even need to say it, I did not say you were been libellous. Is there a word for someone wrongly accusing somebody of wrongly accusing somebody of writing something defamatory? If there is, and if I gave a damn about it or about being defamed by you, I might do something about it, but on the balance of probabilities I don't give a damn. If you have something useful to say about trees that isn't a QTRA sales pitch, crack on. I can't stop you, whatever you say, nor is it my job to do so. But it's a free world and if you talk mince, I am just as free to opine that it is mince or that words are being minced. Take care, it's foggy out there...

I downloaded it today for free. But that's not, surely, the subject of this thread? A book is a tangible thing, pre-loved, with history and significance, occasionally with that old book smell and the excitement of peeling apart slightly wrinkled pages and re-discovering lost lore. And having, as happened to me recently, a pressed needle fall out of the Dallimore book that had been there for perhaps 50 years, somebody's long forgotten exciting discovery and souvenir. Or, just the appreciation of our predecessors' clear crisp (if a little flowery at times) written word. All that lovely stuff that has come from stepping out of the hustle and bustle of the commercially-driven myopia of the day in to a sedate chamber somewhere for a while to say it like it really is. A good book is a good book. A bargain is a bargain. And trees are the bees-knees. Put 'em all together and ... Gola!

So far, you win!

Score depends on how much it cost...how much?

It looks spindle bush related. I am due over on the south side of Glasgow next week andI will see if I can track down the one I saw there once and knock the person's door.

Been there, but they're single seeded.

I ahve a client witha very late Walnut in Edinburgh.Looks really worrying but I bet it's burst forth since I saw it a few weeks ago. Dense lichen may be a bi-product of late leafing, giving the lichen (wich is pretty slow growing) an extra month or two of photosynthesising before it is shaded out. I can imagine that in extreme cases it could hamper the development of dormant buds in the inner crown if branch tips were lost to storm damage or general environmental die-back factors.

How about this? Mushrooms You Can Only Really Relish Having In Zone Around Lignin

'Gross errors' and 'misled the court' in on sentence? You must be pretty sure of that or esle you've got a libel case on your hands and might have a starring role in negligence and perjury cases. Can you not just stick to your own points instead of having digs at other people?

That's really ingenious. Bet the H&S bods would have a problem over possible accidental release not while it's loaded but while it is momentarily slack in a position where fall potential would suddenly increase by the length of all the rope used in the knot. Anything over 500mm is I think a no-no. A possible refinement would be to put a few twists in the final bight that is passed up through, because otherwise on bigger stems or with irregular bark one loop of the bight might not be pressed as firmly as the other and could drop out. If it is the working end loop, it will be constantly being tugged and the loop could inch its way out. It does this anyway, I have managed to get this not to collapse after repeated twitching. I can try and show this refinement in a pic of you want. I have also tried a little variation that allows you to recover the rope by plling on the static end rather than the working end. Only tested so far on a kitchen chair, but it does seem to work. Easier to show than to explain. Again pic could be provided. Great idea, by the way. I can see its possibility in DRT too, where recoverable redirects are a pain in the bum. Quite straigthforward now that think about it as long as, like in SRT, a suitable form of fork is available.

Degenerated? It's all just good-natured chat. On a forum where half the posts are about what people are watching on the telly or having for their dinner, it is relatively speaking refreshing to discuss tree issues with fellow tree-ists, however regressive the chat seems. Good point about what the A in CAS stands for, by the way. Although |I don't think I'll ever get comfortable with Arborist being used the american way.