daltontrees

It's pretty basic. Just 5 words. "in the interests of amenity" Tree preservation orders E+W 198 Power to make tree preservation orders. E+W (1) If it appears to a local planning authority that it is expedient in the interests of amenity to make provision for the preservation of trees or woodlands in their area, they may for that purpose make an order with respect to such trees, groups of trees or woodlands as may be specified in the order. (2) An order under subsection (1) is in this Act referred to as a “tree preservation order”. (3 to 4) revoked (5) A tree preservation order may be made so as to apply, in relation to trees to be planted pursuant to any such conditions as are mentioned in section 197(a), as from the time when those trees are planted. (6) revoked (7) This section shall have effect subject to— (a) section 39(2) of the M1Housing and Planning Act 1986 (saving for effect of section 2(4) of the M2Opencast Coal Act 1958 on land affected by a tree preservation order despite its repeal); and (b) section 15 of the Forestry Act 1967 (licences under that Act to fell trees comprised in a tree preservation order). (8) revoked

Yes this can be hard to understand. But think of it this way. When wood is growing it might be typically 50% moisture (but depends on species). Your calculation so far ony shows that the wood has lost 38% of its weight. Call it 40% for round numbers. IF, and only if, you know that it was 50% moisture at the start, you could say that it's weight is now made up of 50% of its original weight in wood and 10% of its original weight in water. The ratio of these two 10:50 is 100% x 10/50 = 20%. That's the moisture content. But, you can never really know if the original 50% is right. It might be 55%, it might be 45%. This would give you different moisture content figures. (18% or 22%). The only way to be sure is to oven-dry the piece, get it's 0% moisture weight and then let it rehydrate and weigh it again. But who would ever do that? I tried to calibrare a pile of cedar once. I found that different parts of the same ring had quite significantly different moisture contents. It's pretty futile. Measurement by meter is a different matter. It goes on basis that electrical conductivity of wood increases in proportion to moisture content. No calculation or calibration is required. So, weight loss is is a good indication of water loss but tells you nothing absolute.

Looks like Oyster (Pleurotus ostreatus). Only feeds on deadwood. Looks like good adaptive growth of wood around an old branch wound. No way of knowing depth, from this photo. Leave it alone!

It doesn't matter that it's a commercial client. What matters is that because it's 'non-domestic' it's probably not in a garden and therefore doesn't have the 'garden' exemption from need for Felling Permission (Scotland) or License (E&W)

I agree Indian Horse Chestnut

"They gave you permission thereby consenting to the risk that harm might be caused." No, that is not a sound legal point.

He would have to show that the tree is permanently damaged, that it was a result of what you did rather than other factors such as the existing hollowing, and he'd have to quantify and substantiate the financial loss. He has a long way to go, by the sound of it. Say nothing in writing and only 'I'm sorry' verbally.

The important date is the date of notification. The 6 weeks start at that point. There is no requirement for 'validation' or acknowledgement of receipt. Get the notice right, wait 6 weeks then proceed to do the works. There is no need to know if the Council is doing anything about it. Some are too busy even to acknowledge.

I have it on good authority that listing does not protect trees My mention of insurance was only if a designer had selected species based on water demand. If the advice had been ignored in favour of a more demanding tree, a smartass insurer would be onto it. Unlikely, but not zero.

If the planting was part of approved information submitted to support the application, it would be a breach and the owner could be made to replant correctly. Unless time-barred. If the species caused subsidence that the correct species wouldn't have, insurers might have a lot to say about it. 'Zero' is a big word.

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.