daltontrees

It looks like G. applanatum to me. If it is, it's not going to be very aggressive but it is what it says about the condition of the butt that is sounding hollow. Personally I would eb thinking (risk assessment-wise) Likelihood of failure medium to high, severity of harm to persons high, severity of harm to wires etc low to medium, target presence of persons low, target presence of wires etc high (permanent), overall risk tolerable but high end of tolerable. Then I'd be thinking are there any reasons to retain it that outweight the risk? It looks rubbish and has not future, so no. Then I'd think, what is the appropriate course of action that would reduce the risk to acceptable? Probably reducing its wind resistance by pruning it right back. Then i'd think, well if it didn't look rubbish before then it's going to look awful after pruning, and the pruning is going to knock the tree for six, meaning potentially removing it in 5 years time. Then i'd be thinking what if it could be taken right back to a pole so that it cna be left to die and provide habitat? Then I'd offer the client the options, prune and monitor, remove completely or habitat pole. But first I'd tap it with a mallet. Can you let us know what comes of it, especially if you are told to remove it, I'd love to see a section through the butt.

The pictures are clear enough to suggest Ganoderma sp and associated stem weakening. But you havent' shown size or shape of tree, presence of roads and footpaths nearby, buildings likely to be hit and so forth. It's not a fungus ID issue it's a risk asessment and duty of care issue.

According to the foreword "The challenge now is for everyone charged with the design and delivery of sustainable and inclusive public spaces to think how the “humble” tree can make a difference in the schemes they are developing." If the past is the key to the present, and if we have all seen good and bad examples of trees that are making a difference, what does anyone else think of the guidance and why a self-appointed group felt it had to present such a thorough opinion on the subject? It's a sickeningly slow download, by the by. Put the kettle on.

With respect to Mr H's opinion in caution, no element of doubt in my mind that these brackets are not Fomes. I am curious about whether the side-profile of a perennial bracket is symptomatic of its decay (sub) strategy, but that's one for another day or another thread. On the (side) face of it, though, your brackets just don't seem to tick the Fomes box.

I feel a bit seasick after watching that. Coud have done with an early floyd soundtrack.

Agreed. They are too heavy but crucially they are not designed to pull the body immediately into a sitting position. Tell you what, though, for aid climbing a tree work harness would be the biz. Good for hanging belays too. Could use a tree work harness for top-roping at a climbing wall, since there are no dynamic forces i.e. if you let go at the climbing wall and as long as your belayer isn't distracted eyeing up the talent on the adjacent route, you shouldn't fall at all.

I have been staring at a blank response screen for 10 minutes, realising how complex this issue is and contemplating what I could add to simplify that complexity. Unfortunately I fear it can't readily be simplified, since it's such a broad hypothetical question. We can all see ways of defining the crieria but I am now convinced that a simple DBH x number or even a stem height x number solution isn't possible. Probably looking at an algorithmic answer.

I thoguht about the Alnuses too, the leaf shape is about right for incana or rubra but the leaves are too glossy and stiff. And these pictures show leaves in whorls off a spur, like you would expect from Rosaceae or maybe some hybrid poplars but for sure not Alnus. I keep coming back to Pyrus

Firstly I wouldn't call it 'RPA' I would invent another term, say 'support zone'. Cutting back the roots of a dead tree will probably, almost certainly, result in the structure failing more quickly by admitting subterranean decay that could accelerate the loss of strength and woody material in structural roots. But I imagine you'll get nowhere by telling a developer that he'll get another 2 years out of his standing deadwood if he allows a full RPA-type support zone. I think more importantly is the issue of risk. Particularly if loss of support in the invisible subterranean area is a real possibility the risks associated with retaining a dead tree are predictably ever increasing but unmeasurable b any VTA or even most of the more advanced techniques. The most logical outcome I see is that an exclusion zone around the tree where people and property are excluded or cna be predicted to be rarely present is ahat is needed. It could hbe the area within which branches could drop or it could be the falling distance zone in any directions where root zone failure would allow the weight of the dead tree to go that way. I am sure there would be exceptions, but I instinctively expect that the risk exclusion zone will be bigger than the support zone for all dead trees. But it needn't necessarily be a circle. If the dead tree is leaning and could only go one direction the risk exclusion zone could be a segment of only 30 degrees. I'm making this up as I go along (as if you couldn't guess) and I a now thinking that the but differences between compressive reaction wood strategies of support in conifers and tensile on broadleaves might mean that for leaning trees the support zone will be directionally the same as the risk exclusion zone for conifers and directionally opposite for broadleaves. For an upright dead tree, I would be inclinded (after a quick flick through Tree Roots in the Built Environment) to go for a support zone of no more than 5 x DBH. Beyond that roots are most unlikely to have structural significance. I suspect a more rigorous approach would be to relate the SZ to the estimated extent of live canopy when the tree had last been in normal vigour. As ever, just chatting, don't act on this as formal advice. I'd be interested in any other opinions.

OK, Rigidoporus ubiquitosis it is.

Ooops, meant Dothistroma. FC website says "Needle symptoms are most apparent in June to July, after this the infected needles are shed and trees may have a typical ‘lions tail’ appearance with only a tuft of the current years needles remaining at the branch ends."

Cold be Dithostroma, it has that hallmark sign of having good current year's growth but lost all the older growth. I hope I'm wrong.

Almost sure this is Cotoneaster frigidus 'Cornubia'

I see a flatter bracket bottom left, just round the corner, that's looking more like a conventional G. applanatum

You see this on Lime all the time, dead leaves get trapped behind the epicormics and compost themselves right there. This just looks like the sort of musty by-product of natural bidegrading by some non-pathogenic fungi and bacteria. Putting it another way, it doesn't look like K.d.

I wish someone would get the second one, it's bugging me. I had convinced myself it could be Pyrus pyraster but now I'm doubting it.

Very young ilver birch have large leaves, some self-seeders in my garden are 4 inches long. This is just the juvenile stage, they're definitely definitely birch and if you leave them you will see normal size leaves developing in subsequent years. I'd keep them in preference to self-seeders, nursery stock is usually better quality than natural stock, developing better form and foliage.

I think Chris@eden was referring to Regina v Davey in Poole. It wqas a Maritime Pine blocking the owner's view of the harbour, so he got it cut down. This enhanced the value of the property by £50k. This was added to the punishment and expenses and I think the guilty party paid £150k in all. The one with teh yew and the extra parking was covered on Arbtalk and in the press but I haven't seen a written judgement.

There is a problem here. Everyone seems to be assuming that the OP's reference initially that "an area is covered by a tpo" means it's an Area Order. Until we know if that is indeed the case, we are wasting his and our time. Also, the TPO seems to have been made under the 1967 Regulations, which have been revoked and then their replacement (the 1999 Regs) have been revoked. But the Regulations even the old ones still live on and are in force for Orders made under them and not re-made under later versions. Anyone out there confident in saying what distinction the Model Order in the Schedule to the 1967 Order made between areas, groups, woodlands or individual trees? I can't even find the 1967 Regs. So the question really is what the largely revoked Regulations say about an unknown TPO and a tree that either wasn't there, was overlooked, wrongly described or was too small to be recorded in 1977. Good luck with that. I continue to advise a precautionary approach.

I read the bit of the Act 3 times before I could figure out what it really meant. Was beginning to doubt myself too.

I put the woodburner on last noght for the first time since spring. Later on I had to go out for something and when I got back and opened the front door I could feel the warm air pouring out of the living room. The glow and the smell of hot dusty metal was loooovely. And not a penny to the gasman.

The quota is on felling, not on selling. It's a hard one to get the head round, but you could only be prosecuted if you sold more than 2m3 of the wood you felled in any quarter. If you keep a record of the felling dates and make sure the 5m3 a quarter is not exceeded, you are free to sell 2/5ths of the wood any time you want, in any batch size you want, even all at once. What you couldn't do is sell another 2/5ths the next period. This seems ridiculous in a way, because you would be allowed instead to cut down another 2m3 and sell that. In summary, it's when you fell, not when you sell, that counts for the exemption.

Clearly I didn't agree at the time. Depends whose satisfaction is being measured I suppose. Anyway, the OP didn't ask about any of this. Btw, the legislation uses the words 'standard scale' rather than tariff. The word 'tariff' only appears in the Magistrate Courts Sentencing Guidelines as a cross-reference to the Criminal Injuries Authority.

Not quite correct, fines are unlimited on indictment. Not that indictment is likely in this case.

I've always found this curious. You could in theory start a job on Tuesday the 30th September by felling 5 cube and on Wednesday 1st October you could fell another 5 cube. Then take as long as you want to process it on the ground. Oh well, them's the rules.