daltontrees

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.

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.