daltontrees

Sorry but I don't think this is right. First thing is, the exemption applies to 'public open space', not to 'open space'. Secondly, it is defined in the Act as "land laid out as a public garden or used ... for the purpose of public recreation, or land being a disused burial ground".

Yeah, and so is the tree.

Many enthusiastic responses, but no-one yet has tried to answer the question. Firstly I note that the oldest the tree can be is 2014 -1977 = 37, plus the age it was when the TPO was made. The age it was then must have been low enough for it not to have been included in the Order. Although the Conservation Area rule of 75mm diameter doesn't apply to area TPOs, you could argue that any tree that small couldn't have entered the COuncil's thinking when making the TPO. OK, so the Forestry Commission a few years ago published data for ageing trees. Basically, until 'mature state' trees are in 'core development' and put on the same amount (subject to weather fluctuations) of diameter every year. For Beech the lowest 'first mature state' ring is at 60 years. The next thing is, the amount of diameter depends on situation. The annual increase in diameter in milllimetres is - Champion tree potential (ideal site conditions) 12 Good site, open grown, sheltered 10 Average site, garden, parkland 8 Churchyard 8 Poor ground and/or some exposure 8 Inside woodland 6 So you could decide which of these categories represents the conditions of your tree for most of its life. Then measure the diameter of your tree and divide by the relevant number. That should be the age. Then take the category number again and divide it into 75mm. That will be the age that should be deducted for the early years cut-off assumption. Here's an example (I'm confusing myself so this will help me too). You have a Beech on an average site, it measures 400mm in diameter. The data suggests it will have put on 8mm diameter a year. 400 divided by 8 is 50 years. But it was not TPOable until it was 75mm/8mm = about 9 years old. So its TPOable age is 50 - 9 = 41 years. In your case the TPOable cut-off would have been 2014 - 1977 = 37 years. So the tree in this example would have been just big enough in 1977 to be TPOable (it would have been 50 - 37 = 13 years old and would have been 13 x 8mm = 104mm in diameter). Further advice - check that Copper Beech and Common Beech have the same growth rate, or else the FC figures are useless to you. Also, assume self-seeding rather than planting. Check that site conditions haven't changed markedly since 1977, including whether the surrounding trees were big enough back then to suppress the Beech. Don't use these figures if the age seems to exceed 60 years. And most importantly, don't blame me if it doesn't work out, I can only advise on generalities and am quoting the Forestry Commission. As ever [sigh] I have had to assume you are in England/Wales. If you're not, the rules are different.

That was my first (and so far only) thought.

Sadie, try re-starting your posting in the Homeowners Tree Advice Forum. Ore pople are likely to see it there than in the fungi section. But in short you have a tree that is clearly defective, and could be an unacceptable risk to you and to the public on the adjacent road. Now that you are aware of the defect, the law obliges you to follow it up. I strongly recommend that you pay for professional advice from someone (not a tree surgeon but a tree consultant) who can inspect the tree in all its context and advise you in writing on prognosis, risk and the courses of action open to you for a tree preservation order situation. And of course what can be done if anythign to save the tree.

My guess is Mycena seynii. And quite old.

Might I ask where? UK? Europe?

Exactly! Nuisance and the exemption for abating nuisance is legal nuisance, not ordinary language nuisance. Wasps are an ordinary language nuisance, encroacment of roots is a legal nuisance. If you want to remove roots of your own tree on your own land, you cannot use the exemption. If you apply and it is refused, you can only claim compensation for actual dmage occurring after the refusal that was foreseeable at the time of refusal. So of the surface was damaged before applying, you're on to plums. See Perrin v Northants if you want to see it done to death. But no other authority is needed than the plain wording of the Act and Regulations.

OK, if the tree is dangerous the Council has powers etc.. If it is morbidly dangerous, it might actually use them. It cant force action, though, only take action itself and force reimbursement.

I know you are probably just paraphrasing the Act, but what it actually says is "is in such condition that it is likely to cause damage to persons or property". That is in my mind a less stringent test than 'morbidly dangerous' would be. I would say it just means 'dangerous'. And the problem ,as others have said, is tat it forces nothing. The owner can ignore a notice requiring it to make the tree safe. The COuncil then has to weigh up the odds of not getting its miney back if it goes in to do teh work and then tres torecover the costs. The only risk to an ntransigent tree owner is that the Council might pay more to get the tree made safe than its owner would have had to. Serve notice on the Council, it's all you can do in statute. It costs nothing to serve notice, and it might result in action. It is a long process and the sooner started the better. The moral onus will be on the Council to do something about the tree, the blame will attach to the Council if it all goes horribly wrong, and the Council won't want that stigma. OP has said so little... If the tree overhangs the school, the school can cut back the overhang, with minimal or no notice to the tree owner. Meantime the school management might be considered negligent if it doesn't exclude children from a playground under the tree for a few weeks while the dispute is moved along. If the tree is threatening the building to the extent that harm to the school children and staff is foreseeably severe, move to another room. If that can't be done, close it down. Blaming the tree owner is not enough, you must mitigate known risk. And, of course, avoid children being harmed. DFAOE...

Old and emerging Piptoporus betulinus on Betulus pubescens, Edinburgh.

In my limited experience of these things, putting lime anywhere near the soil of Leylandii can be disastrous. Not only do they like and create their own acidity, they actively dislike alkalinity and it messes up a very delicate balance of bacteria and fungi around the base that collectively buld up a steady mild toxicity and acidity that maximise the growth conditions for Lelandii. My standard action for improving light internally wher there is a lot of dead foliage is not to remove branches or twigs but to strip them bare by pulling though your hand with a thick leather glove on. If it doesn't want to fall off it won't, if it does the wood will already have compartmentalised and is best left alone in situ. I have never diagnosed Cercospora, but I would be tempted to put tarps under the canopies before removing dead material, then drag the tarps out and burn the dry stuff. I'd probably be tempted to blow the grould clear of debris first, and butrn that too, then mulch the whole under-canopy with conifer mulch afterwards. Just my random thoughts, based on fairly non-systematic observatrions of past successes and failures.

Where are they? What's the climate and has it been unusual weather this year?

All very well, but no use in isolation as you are just pointing out potential hazards but not relating these to risk assessment and legal liabilities. I mean, what would a client do with a report that says your tree might shed a limb or fall over? How likely is it, will it probably hurt someone, will the harm be severe, will you be liable in law for damages, what should do do to discharge your common-law duties? That is more important than ointing out potential hazards.

Paul, no doubt you will have noted that I have addressed specifically only part of the original question. Literally, one requires no qualification other than a brass neck to write reports. Of course, unless you ar equalified and insured your reports will it be worth wood pulp. But customers are either stupid, gullibe or hopeful sometimes that they can get a report for pennies. The AA and other professional bodies are the only ones that can effectively educate the public as to the difference between chancers and a value-for-money service that won't crumble in your hands at the first sign of a tree situation gong badly wrong. So, to the OP i would say if you are goung to write reports without qualifications, experience and insurance get yourself a fast car, a letter-drop empty flat postal address and a good bad lawyer. Or else you are going to end up in deep doodoo eventually.

I would agree, apart from the lack of a persistent partial veil ring, which is quite a distinctive feature in Agrocybe cylindraceae

Unfortunately, nothing.

I can see where the Manuka guess is coming from. How about Leptospermum lanigerum?

Anyone in Scotland dealing with any High Hedges cases just now? If so, I would be interested to hear. I've got 1 closed case (won) and 3 current appeals, and they are all showing that the absence of Guidance for the public in Scotland was a big big mistake. It's crucial these first few appeals do as much as they can to fix the problem, so I would be intersted to present a common front with any other pallicants or appellants.

There's a slight difference between buoyancy aids and life jackets. The latter will keep your head above water even if you're unconscious. The former just help you float. But they're much tougher day to day, tolerating fisk hooks, petrol spillages, knife cuts etc much better than life jackets will. I always liked wearing a buoyancy aid, it saves your ribs when you're hanging over the gunwhales.

The exemption includes 'prevention' of a nuisance, isn't there a case for removing more than the exact 5.2m to allow for sagging under snow loads or sway in strong winds?

I think that's where 5.2m comes from, it's 16 feet plus a foot extra for margin.

Good suggestions. I am all for variety, I love to see field maple, turkish hazel, service, himalayan birch, the odd nothofagus or zelkova. It's all about scale and tolerance of sparse conditions, weighed up against management costs and risk.

American and Crimean Limes are increasingly popular up here for their aphid-shunning properties.

Take your pick BRC - Database of Insects and their Food Plants Most likely a beetle (Coleoptera) and a leaf beetle (subfamily Chrysomelinae), possibly best candidate is Phyllodecta vitinella but it seems that there are abberations of most of the metallic beetles that make black ones look blue or green or bronze.