daltontrees

Sorry, I can't help you. Attached is aletter you might already have seen defending Shigo's principles and I think identifying some of the origins of conflict between Shigo's and Slater's approaches. I have no problem with people knocking Shigo's work but it's a pity the detractors can't come up with a better explanation. It could scarcely be clearer to anyone that has had a branch snap underfoot up a tree that the connection on top of the branch to the stem is purely mechanical, with minimal if any vascular connection.

That is so unfair. And if you are familiar with the Wagon Mound case it also seems wrong.

The more I think about this the unclearer it gets. On the one hand you cold see the sloping tree as an encroachment into air space just like any overhanging branches. The position on that is clear, the overhung person can remove, subject only to offering the arisings back to the tree owner. The generality of that is sound enough, it is a sensible position that has been in common law for at least 2 millenia. Trees are natural living things that don't know of petty arbitrary human things like ownership boundaries. It is not illegal to let a tree grow into someone's airspace. But that isn't the situation here. The tree has been thrust into someone's airspace. Forget what the insurers say, insurers have a duty to themselves and their shareholders not to spend money if they don't have to. They have a contract (the insurance policy) with the insured which says when they pay out and when they don't. If they won't pay to finish the job off it doesn't necessarily follow that the tree owner shouldn't. This is not a normal tree encroachment. It seems to me to be a sudden encroachment like any other, like if someone parked a car on your land. It may be an act of god, it may not have been foreseeable, but why should the encroached have to suffer this unauthorised intrusion into his airspace? On that basis, get the tree owner to move it. I am pretty sure legal action would back this up and would award costs against the tree owner.

That's a very good summary of the issues. But I suppose what I was getting at is that if you disregard whether worth or value is an appropriate term, is it even possible to put a figure on amenity? As long as there is no way of relating that figure back to some market test then I don't think that it is UNLESS the figure quoted is stated as being an artificial and purely relative one.

|I would be kidding myself on if I said I had a complete answer to this. Hence my post a few minutes ago. In the left corner is the Act that gives the Council TPO powers in the interests of the amenity of the area. In the right corner is the Council trying to out a 'break it and you pay for it' label on its trees. Equating words with numbers has never been easy, and never will be.

Here's a general question for anyone that's interested. For once isn't any sort of loaded or rhetorical question. Can amenity be quantified in ££s?

Sorry, I have been preoccupied with ALL sorts of other stuff, will definitely get round to this.

Nor would I! Do what any reasonable person would do in the circumstances and you need fear no repercussions.

Ford Transit Smiley tipper 190 is on 150k miles. Aint gonna win any sprints but she plods on.

Good to hear it's working better. But if you want to see cells you will almost certainly not do this with a reflected light microscope and you may have to take the leap to transmitted light microscopy (see my earlier posts) Microtomes are simple in principle. They hold samples firmly while very very thin slices are taken of them. Bear with me and I will post a few pictures. You should be able to improvise a microtome with a bolt, two nuts, a razor blade and a candle.

Good point, but decay IS always damage. Conversely damage is not always decay. Decay can arise from OR cause dysfunction. Dysfunction is a process, not a thing, and I don't see how a consequence of damage or decay can be described as compartmentalised ???

I'd go with Pleurotus sp. too.

There seem to be a few loose ends in this thread. In the interest of leaving the thread a bit tidier as a reference resource, I am going to have a shot at summarising. I suspect I will regret it. There are three parties as I see it. The tree owner, the development site owner (whether he is the developer or the person selling the land) and the public sector (generally the Council). Firstly for trees that are not protected by TPOs or CA status at the time development is proposed. The tree owner has to tolerate the removal of roots in the site and overhanging branches, as long as this is not done mischeviously. He could ask the Council to intervene and TO the tree. The site owner can remove roots in the site, just as he can overhanging branches. This can be done with or without development proposals. The Council can make a TPO to prevent unconsented work to the tree, if it considers it expedient to do so for the amenity of the area. They can alternatively or additionally put forward conditions in a planning consent that protect part of the tree and its roots that are on the site, even if the stem of the tree is on other land. Secondly for trees that are TPO'd already. The tree owner cannot do anything to the tree or its roots without TPO consent, unless the planning consent for the site allows such work. The developer cannot do anything to the tree or its roots or branches, even the parts in or over the site, without TPO consent. The exception is that if the planning permission explicitly or implicitly recognises that the tree works are needed to implement the consent. In that case a separate TPO consent is not needed. Any work beyond that which is necessary to implement the consent is unlawful. If the site owner does not have the tree owner's permission to do work to the tree he can only do what he could do at common law (see first scenario). The Council can make a TPO when it learns of the development proposals if it has reason to believe that the tree should be protected for its amenity contribution to the area and is under threat. This would protect all parts of the tree against wilful damage or destruction. The roots would thus be protected. It can also impose conditions on any work that might affect the parts of the tree that are in the site. The 'site' is the application site. It is not generally competent for the Council to impose conditions on any land that does not form part of the application site, whether the development site and the application site have the same boundaries or not. I think that's the gist of it as I see it. Please anyone correct me if I'm wrong. Anyone acting on this advice does so at their own risk. Please verify it independently before acting. I cannot be held responsible for trying to be helpful for free.

I don't believe it, I have just read the Localism Act. And I haven't a clue what it does. Apart from saying Councils can do whatever they like within reason.

I am seeing this thread for the first time. Have there been any advances on the revised model, to anyone's knowledge? And digging up old ground, I am inclined to disagree with RobArb's original suggestion that D should be renamed Dysfunction. It seems to me that Damage would be more appropriate since the compartmentalisation of Wall 4 will take place regardless of decay or dysfunction, and regardless of whether Walls 1, 2 and 3 developing. I would also suggest that the formation of all 4 walls in the CODIT model are examples of function, not dysfunction. It is trees' ability to compartmentalise damage that has given the evolutionary advantage to outcompete plants of lesser stature. This seems to me a function. One could go on to argue that all the mechanisms or physical barriers of walls 1, 2 and 3 will happen or are already present regardless of pathogens. Sorry, Rob, but I can't see why Dysfunction is an appropriate term. Decay doesn't seem that apt now either.

I was hoping someone would help me with this too. When I get a moment I plan to put some pictures up of a simple slide being produced from non-woody material using an improvised microtome. But my own wood ones have been a bit poor, I could do with advice.

I'm sorry to hear that it's not working. Did you buy it second-hand? What make and model is it? It really shouldn't be hard to operate, when I got mine I didn't even look at the manual, just plugged it in and put the mini CD in and it worked right away. Mine has a video function too but I just use it as a CCTV till i line up the right shot for a still.

Well, there you go, I'll let my client know. It's still pretty amazing that a fruiting body can develop through such a tiny crack.

I should have looked a bit closer but doing so would have necessitated breaking the cluster open, they looked like they were having a hard enough time as it was. Besides, it was intermittently lashing with rain and gusting about 50mph. I was keen to get my new Nikon out of the salty air asap. That 'driftwood' was a whole trunk about 5m long and 60cm diameter, hollow at the base and I am guessing a K. deusta failure. The fungi were therefore on a part of the tree that would have been at about 5m up. But now growing horizontally on the 'driftwood' in its new position lodged in (no, on!) a sand dune. The force that must have carried it there is unthinkable. If its hitchhikers survived the ride they could survive anything.

Another odd place for fungus, or it seemed odd when I saw it 2 days ago (2nd January). It was on a lump of wood on a windswept beach, 10 metres from the water's edge, soaked with seaspray, draped with seaweed and caked with sand. And still seemed to be struggling on.

I feel drawn now to the Prunus avium camp, or Prunus anyway. Those lenticel bands are so pronounced. I am sure that Aspen's bands tend towards lines of black diamonds which in time can end up as vertical ridging. Also no Aspen leaves in the picture.

You said something about the other trees in the area all being Beech and something else. If you look in the leaf litter at the base of the tree for any leaf forms that aren't from species that you know, it will narrow it down. Aspen leaves are so distinctive that if there is only one of this tree in the area and you find Aspen leaves nearby I'd say you've got most of the evidence you need to confirm it's Aspen. Also if there are any recent wind breakages lying around that look like they came off this tree, have a look at the buds. Some guide books describe the buds as 'painfully sharp' or words to that effect. Stick one into your thumb pad and you'll soon know.

Three things occur to me. Firstly, and as seems to be the case, the fungi seem to be a recurrence of annual fruiting which would mean the tree was already in poor health before the development was commenced. It may be impossible to prove that any subsequent failure of the tree is due to root damage. It might have failed eventually anyway or become so unsightly or dangerous that is removal by its owner would have been required and would not have been resisted by the Council or could have been done under exemption. I get the feeling that proof of tree loss due to the developer's actions without very substantial and expert arboricultural input (at considerable expense) would be beyond the ability of the OP even with the help of all the advice given in this Forum. Secondly it is worth considering as it always is that the Council could be watching this post unofficially and gleaning tactical advantage. Thirdly, my instinct as a citizen is that there is something not quite right here with the Council closing its file. A freedom of information request may or may not yield additional evidence, but in my experience of being on the receiving end of requests when in Local Government and of putting them in on my own behalf the crucial thing is to get the question right. Asking for all the information and correspondence the Council has about the tree and the land could result legitimately in a rejection of the request or a charge being made (legitimately) for information that turns out to be of no use. Frame the request carefully and dispassionately. You do NOT have to say why you want the information and the Council is NOT allowed to ask.

Fair play! Relatively rare though. And oddly mostly up north. Anyway I am slightly envious of some of the finds on Arbtalk, the range up here seems to be genuinely smaller and the finds less frequent. Maybe I am looking in the wrong sorts of woods for the softy Ganoderma. Most of those carnosum were on Douglas Fir, which I rarely see in the city.

Priceless! I am off to chortle about that while I make the dinner. At least you got an answer... No doubt I will bore the ether with my thoughts on it in due course.