daltontrees

Just observation over several decades. Cherry generally has shallow roots but they really seem to bulge and break the surface below grafts.

YEs I usually takea a long section of any grafted trees tat I am involved with and which have to be felled. There's usually a bit of perturbed fibres at the graft but strong enough. The only problem I see arising is some species producing suckers right under the graft line and if trhese get left too long and then are removed then decay arises. Oddly the worst consequence of grafting I see is incompatible (C+2 or higher) grafts in Prunus avium that cause ridiculously outsized surface roots which then get mullered by mowers.

Quire right about the tests, but unfortunately those who are jittery about these things can't safely ignore the conditions if they don't meet the tests. Strictly speaking the thing to do would be to appeal the condition on the basis that it is unreasonable or unnecessary, but of course the other option which the less jittery will happily take is to ignore the conditions on the basis that they are probably unenforceable. Either way, the sort of bullshit conditions that Councils commonly insert are tiresome and all too often don't achieve any meaningful results.

That is not a valid copndition. Government guidance is clear that conditions should not be used to protect trees beyond the development period. It says that that is the job of TPOs.

I've never known graft points to be structural weaknesses (i.e. failed at graft preferentially to any other part). Not even a common entry point for decay, even if they do look messy. I'd be interested in hearing of examples where they are.

I'm pretty sure it's nothing more than a Norway Maple with a complex pruning history.

I got invited to join one a few years ago in Glasgow. I thought about it for a few minutes and realised I'd be better spending the time advertising my business and winning work based on merit. The danger can be that if the BNI members don't understand what you do then they create leads that you can't do anythingt with and woudl have killed off yourself on the first phone call. Als you end up recommending people that you actually don't know their work quality, and so it can reflect badly on you later. I didn't bother with it and never thought about it since and certainly never wondered whether I should have done it. My advice, build a reputation through good work and good customer relations and you'll never need BNI. Got enough to be do without trying to pass business to others, even if they do reciprocate. It felt dodgy to me. Not illegal, just a bit 'masonic'.

Other countries exist in the UK and the planning laws are different in each. There's no legislation that says TPO trees can't be in private gardens. Indeed, many are and it rarely sits well with householders. There are plannign application appeal precedents that have supported refusal of applications for houses on the basis that the trees are at risk from pressure for reductions and felling for light and other amenity later. TPOs don't change that, they just ramp up the conflict. Local authorities increasingly have policies that presume against development close to offsite trees, it's of dubious legality but it's for the same reason, to prevent future conflict in which the trees invariably lose.

Don't give an opinion on why the tree blew down. Don't! Curtail your instinct to be helpful, it can only end badly.

what country?

First, second and third impressions were Norway Maple.

Guidelines for planting eucalyptus in the UK. 1. Don't. 2. If you do, don't expect it to survive a hard ground frost, unless you live by the sea. 3. Apart from that they're pretty hard to finish off, so cut back with impunity. 4. If you want it to look half decent, prune it every year without fail. Pick a height and stick to it. 5. Don't plant on shrinkable clays, they drink like fish. 6. Don't plant on the boundary, if your neighbours don't already hate you they soon will.

Just saw the TO comments. The double negative cannot be right, all the other indications are that he is saying the exemption would not have been useable. So, offence. Indicates that an application would not have been approved. Prosecution should follow if any public interest to be served.

I didn't see the TO comments. But based on what has been said by Dan (the double negatives), it seems it would have qualified for exemption. If so, and following my own logic, the application should not be determined, because there shouldn't have been an application. But conversely the comments of the TO (as given by Dan) suggest that lesser works than felling would have sufficed, and therefore it shouldn't have been exempt. So if there has been a breach, prosecution ought to follow unless ther is no point namely that an application would have been approved. But the TO comment suggests that lesseer works would ahv esufficed, so an application probably wouldn't have been approved. Clear as mud.

According to Lonsdale "When creating a stub, a controlled fracture technique, or perhaps coronet cutting, may be employed instead of conventional cutting, in order to provide a more natural appearance and to expose a larger area of inner bark, from which adventitious shoots could develop. A conventional cut is, however, probably a better option if moisture loss from a large surface area is considered likely to cause excessive dieback, either because the conditions are relatively dry or the stub is relatively short."

Verlry low chance of survival. You or the tree. BTW in teh shrinkable clay sense, soil does not mean topsoil. Where there are no superficial deposits (natural ones) then the subsoil is the bedrock. I use the word 'rock in its (literally) loosest sense, since most shrinkable clay rocks would lose out to a pair of scissors in the traditional game.

Aww, someone has attempted a crude coronet cut. Bless!

There is of course no such thing as a retrospective exemption. I think the application is simply a retrospective application for consent, with the unfortunate use of the word' exemption' (should have said 'TPO consent'). And yes it is an admission of guilt, but technically if it gets retrospective consent then there is no prosecutable offence. It still won't be 'exempt' though. I have always said (because it appears to be the correct interpretation of the law) that it is not legally competent to apply for consent for works that are justified by circumstances that make the works exempt. Councils shouldn't even validate such applications. So there's another good reason why this cannot be an application for exemption.

Parts of Bristol are on shrinkable clays. Susceptibility to subsidence is based on your locatwion being on such clays and the foundations being not deep enough to avoid influence of shrinkage and thirsty trees being present. Shrinkage is becuase trees are taking up water from around them, I don't thnk it's practical to put in what would have to be a waterproof barrier to a depth of as much as a couple of metres. If clays are present, not only do you want to avoid subsidence but you want to be able to recover repair costs from an insurer if it does happen. Key point A, get insurance, key point B follow the engineer's advice or you might be in bother later. Or be really brave and check for the existence of shrinkable clays at your exact location. Personally I can't see a magnolia that size being an issue but in the future possibly. Who knows what the foundations are like, it is more likely that the outside levels have been raised than the inside being lowered. Plan C. manage the Magnoia by frequent pruning. I've always found them really difficult to get to heal pruning wounds, there's a gap of about 2 weeks to prune in. Plan D, try pruning and if it destroys the tree then start again by planting in a buried container.

Don't remove the sap. It's gum, part of the tree's defences.

And where is this? When was the house built?

A sad sight.

I am going to guess at Cupressus macrocarpa, Monterey Cypress

That said I would always use a cinched sling. It seems unwise to be left in a situation where you can't unclip or untie the rope to add extra length. The alpine butterfly is a good idea too.

A timber hitch cinches better around a stem (when pulled form above) than a running bowline does. Add a stopper knot to it and there's no way it will work loose.