daltontrees

Some conclusion jumping by me here. It's got gills, it's on dead or dying wood, it's October, the tree's a Beech, it's gone a bit droppy so it's probably Pleurotus Ostreatus.

Hey, Paul, an exceedingly rare example on Arbtalk of someone apart from PITA-me recognising that the scottish situation is different. Unlike England, the rule is not in Regulations, it's in the primary legislation. It is very simple. Nothing can prevent anyone - "uprooting, felling or lopping of trees if ... it is urgently necessary in the interests of safety...". There is no 5 day notice procedure, but I'm sure a fancy lawyer would construe from the Act that you really ought to tell the Council "in writing of the proposed operations ... as soon as practicable after the operations become necessary".

You can only do urgently want needs to be done. A dangerous branch doesn't mean fellignthe whole tree. The tree may now be safe because the only weak part (the branch) has already fallen off. Do as little as you have to, and record the evidence of why you had to do it. Then, as Skyhuck says, notify COuncil of intention to do anything more extensive. The dead, dangerous etc. exemption does not exist any more, it has been replaced with a risk assessment basis. Guidance is available online.

Also not helpful by me, I know, but all those insureres went bust ...

Sorry this won't help you but personally I wouldn't want to be insured by anybody that would insure me without tickets. I've just been through my policy and althoygh it runs to dozens of pages the only thing I can find is it says - "The Assured shall take all reasonable precautions or steps: a) to observe and comply with all statutory or local authority laws obligations and requirements;" And I think that means the H&S Act and all the Reguations that come off it (PPE, PUWER, COSHH, LOLER, WAH atc.) Then it says "To the extent that any failure by the Assured to take such reasonable precautions or steps gives rise to, or contributes to a loss then any claim that is the subject of that loss will not be covered under this Policy." That insurer didn't ask to see my tickets, but basically if I screw up on something I should have demonstrated competence for they'll leave me high and dry. The advantage of a blind-eye policy is that you can wave it around when tendering for work, it might get you somewhere but generally if it's a big contract the employer will either want to see tickets too or will want a method statement that details the tickets of everyone on the job.

You just have to bite the bullet on this. VAT was once a tax on luxury goods, but it's not that clear now. It is a tax on what the VAT Act says its a tax on, and that is all that matters to HMRC.

I emailed the seller through ebay, see below the exchange. I wonder if she'll put that in the questions answered section? Dear xxxxxx, Get a life.....doesn't say it's husqsy - jennifershaw1981 Reply in your email program or through My Messages Respond Now From: xxxxxxx To: jennifershaw1981 Subject: Other: xxxxxx sent a message about chainsaw #271627155768 Sent Date: 07-Oct-14 06:00:44 BST Dear jennifershaw1981, That is the poorest fake 395s I have ever seen.

By the way, I think the ivy on the Beech stem can just be seen top right on the second picture.

"I look at that picture of the fractured concrete and think 'a tree did not do that'." That was my reaction too before I read armybloke's splendid appraisal. I would add that the crack is in the middle of a section of concrete that is possibly too big not to have an expansion/movement joint in it. Right about where the crack is would have been a really good place to put one. There is no way (in my opinion and without the full benefit of inspection) that this crack can be attributed, (without further very destructive investigation, so destructive that a new driveway would be needed to reinstate the investigations) beyond reasonable doubt (or even on the balance of probabilities) solely or entirely to the tree.

And a useful mutual learning experience. Coincidentally I am looking at a case just now where 2 disputing neighbours are arguing about the age of a line of trees. I may be able to use my own method to estimate the age of the trees by measuring their diameter.

If you drive a rickshaw you do!

The boring answer is this. You pay VAT on everything that is not exempted by the VAT Act 1994. It lists everything including (Group 16 Item 2 of Schedule 8) "The supply to a person for use otherwise than by employees of his of protective boots and helmets for industrial use". The word 'safety' is not used.

I reckon it's a douglas fir utility pole. If you stick line on it and cut away the log udnderneath it, you could float it to a more suitable landing position. Or pt a winch redirect pulley quite high up in one of the trees behind and winch it out, the pulley height will lift it upwards and it will slide out no bother.

I just meant last time you got lots of useful advce from lots of people but didn't even acknowledge it.

I remember it. At the time you did not follow up your initial posting. Personally I would need a little encouragement to spend more time on this.

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.