daltontrees

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.

According to Wikipedia "Pinning refers to the clogging of the file teeth with pins, which are material shavings. These pins cause the file to lose its cutting ability and can scratch the workpiece. A file card, which is a brush with metal bristles, is used to clean the file... Chalk can help prevent pinning.[Lye 1993]" Lye says simply "Chalk rubbed int the file helps to prevent pinning". I used to use a brass pinning brush. These are really cheap and will extend the life of your file almost indefinitely, as the file material is very hard compared to chains and does not wear down. It's the pinning that stops the files working. You just need to get a method of removing the pinning (brushing) or preventing it sticking (chalk) or both. In the workshop this is practical, not so in the forest. I hope this helps a little.

Ailanthis altissima, at a guess.

Appealing against a refusal is easier than againsrt a deemed refusal. The reason is if the Council refuses it has to giver reasons wht and for your appeal to succeed you only have to address those issues. If you don't get a refusal you have to speculate about why it wasn't approved, and cover all the bases. Really really tiresome, although your planning consultant seems to have covered most of the policy issues. What yo need tro do meantime is make sure that the Council has been given all the information it could have needed to make a balanced decision. I see two separate issues. The future threat to the tree as a principle and the threat to the tree as a matter of degree. Further confused by the way that the matter degree will increase and prove the principle some day.

I hve just read the Arb report. It's pretty partisan. I wasn't persuaded by it. I agree with Edward C's observations about RPA under the road, but that's not the contentious point here, and I would let that sleeping dog lie. And for all that the computer graphics are fun to look at, they don't quantify the daylighting issue. Despite appropriate reference to BS8206, the report then went on to ignore it. In so doing, it failed to persuade me. I have no agenda to pursue on this and I can see that the Council has been left with dry ammo to defend a refusal. It seems a bit mean to refuse based on this one point but as long as the Council has operated within approved policy or has not been given satisfactory evidence of daylighting it's a local discretion that a reporter shouldn't interfere in. Get a BS8206 assessment done and you should at least be able to eliminate that aspect form the dispute.

I've just seen the plans. First impression is that the daylighting for the design on the south elevations with the tree as it is. If it gets much bigger it could be challenging but it should be possible. The problem is the dining area. If that's to be a habitable room at 1 1/2% daylight factor it's marginal.

At solar noon in midsummer at a latitude of 52 degrees the shadow at noon from a 19m tree will extend north from it for 10.3m. In midwinter it will be 73.5m.

I would give it one last shot before appealing against deemed refusal. You would have to admit that the tree will get bigger and get a credible estimate of how much bigger. Then you would need to assess the layout using BS8206:2 and 'BRE: Site layout Planning for Daylight'. If you can demonstrate that the development fits the criteria of the BS, I am sure you would win an appeal or even better win over the LA. You might win an appeal anyway without doing a shading assessment. I find them fairly easy, but it's one of my specialisms and they can get a bit messy if you're not doing them often.