daltontrees

I found this wee article quite illuminating. Elderly oak tree is succumbing to disease at Jack London Park

The Highways Act 1980 (s.137) says that " If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine ..." This is taken by the courts to be the obstruction of the road by temporary occupation such as scaffolding, burger vans, demonstrations and so forth. I am not at all clear that it is intended to include trees, which don't intuitively seem to fall into the category of wilful obstruction i.e. deliberately doing something rather than letting some state of things come to be. I think it would be useful to know for sure whether pruning back branches that might be causing an obstruction, but without having been told it is an obstruction, is exempt from TPO controls.

That's very good of them to be so clear about it. But if you look at the Highways Act there is no duty to keep roads and footpaths clear of obstructions. The only absolute requirement to do so is when notice is served on you. Only then are you complying with an Act of parliament and therefore entitled to enjoy the exemption. Isn't that right? And is Basingstoke saying that you don't need to apply to remove an obstruction because if you do they will approve it anyway? A subtle distinction, but they may be exercising a blanket deemed approval rather than following the letter of the law. I'll feel suitably vanquished, humbled and enlightened if there is some law somewhere that says a tree owner has to keep the road and footpath clear of obstructions.

I don't disagree with you. All I am saying is that if yor tree is obstructing the highway it is not a defence to say that you cannot remove the obstruction because the extent of the work needed does not comply with BS3998. If the amount to be removed exceeds 3998 it may be bad for the health of the tree. But that has to be (in law) a secondary consideration. Of course, any half decent Arb will make the final cuts as sympathetically and as compliant with BS3998 as possible.

When you say you have been asked to appease highways, you have not said you or the client has been served with formal notice by Highways. If not and it has only been an informal letter or verbal request, you have no formal authority to do work on TPOd trees. If you have formal notice from Highways you don't need TPO approval. Either way you should call the TO. It'll take 5 minutes and can only help. People on here are saying you must follow BS3998 or do work to acceptable arboricultural standards. Where does it say that? If a branch is blocking a bus route and has to go, the consequences for the health of the tree are inconsequential. I believe you should do what needs to be done to comply with the Highways requirements, no more and no less. If that means a crown-lift beyond the BS3998 limits, so be it. As my pedantry knows almost no bounds, I would also suggest that you are not 'abating an actionable nuisance' as Skyhuck has suggested (and with total respect for his invariably great posts) but are instead possibly complying with a statutory requirement. An actionable nuisance would arise only from a common law encroachment but since Highways authorities vest only in the solum of the road and not the ground beneath it or the airspace above it they might have no such common law right to seek action against a nuisance or to self-abate it. If such, the tree owner has no such locus to abate it. The Highways rights are entirely statutory, but fortunately for clarity their rights are very clear in the relevant Act(s). There's a possibility that if Highways has formally notified and you dilly-dally, the Highways will go in and do the work and bill your client.

A bit like, but not really. It also causes the tree to fall against its lean, which a tapered hinge will not do without a push or a pull. Last week's job proved increasingly difficult to get a good SD demo tree. Almost gale force winds on Loch Lomondside meant the one I did try wouldn't quite go without a nudge because of wind forces. It did swing round though and once started did a lovely sweep. I have the felling cut in the back of the truck, I will put a picture of it on here soon.

Looks like the developer has been caught offside here on two counts, firstly lack of felling license and secondly perhaps misleading Council on land onwership and therefore crown immunity. WEvery Council website I look at has something about trees and what the basic rules are and some sort of contact in the Council for 'if in doubt' queries. It seems a more appropriate and logical first contact for a resident than the Forestry Commission. The case you cite is reassuring insofar as there is good dialogue between FC and Council and that they understand their interface. I shall look at all the attachments. Sad as it may seem, I love all this procedural guff. Thanks for posting.

I'd go along with the AA guide. It is a good start, and as one comes to appreciate that many fungi on and around trees are inconsequential, it is quite a good finish too. However, in isolation it might be hard to understand the decay strategies and rot types and how significant they are. So if you don't have that basic understanding you might also need something like Fungal Decay Strategies (Schwartze, Engels, Mattheck?) which also has a decent section on the key species of fungi that is as compact as the AA guide.

T'were the soft dutchman. 7 cuts in all. Might get a chance again tomorrow.

Well, if biotroph is literally dependednt on living tissue, then I can't see C.putanea being one, because it's quite happy munching away at long-dead floor joists.

Well, I managed one today, and I tell you what, it's the devil's work. You can get a left leaning tree to go right without ropes, wedges, winches, pushing etc. I watched with amazement as the tree swung away from me then back to the right then landed exactly where it ought to have. Unfortunately I had no camera with me. Maybe tomorrow I will get a picture or two. I've worked out how it happens too, it's cunning and magic and now I want to do them all the time. Except if there is something to hit if I get it wrong, because the cuts have to be bang-on, and even then I can't vouch for how well it would work in some species. If I can't get a video or pictures I will post a sketch and maybe an explanation of how and why I think it works. Woohoo!

As far as I can tell they don't do anything a tapering hinge and a wedge doesn't do better. I have about 100 trees to fell tomorrow (and every day for the next week) and they need to be swung away from a loch, so I'll have a go.

I don't have access to those papers, hopefully someone can post a summary? It would be an odd strategy for a fungus to be biotrophic and to cause brittle failure (and presumably death) of the host.

As I have already said, there is no scottish equivalent to the english/welsh legislation. A useful recent case that discussed liability in the face of evidence of tree defects is Selwyn Smith v Gompels 2009.

I remember C. putanea from my surveying days as the commonest species of wet rot. It will not occur in dry wood, typically below 16% moisture content. I suppose most of the evidence about it's mode of operation is in buildings on dead wood. I have no idea whether it is also active on living wood.

What a pity the client didn't contest it, I think you would have had a decent case. Another quirk of the scottish Act is that it's what the complainant can expect to enjoy, compared to the english Act that is about reasonable enjoyment. What's the difference, you may ask? Well, in your extension case the compainant extended into an area of inadequate light and therefore can't be said to have the right to expect adequate light there. Until someone takes a case on this aspect we'll never know. All I think we can say meantime is that parliament didn't make its intentions clear.

I thinkt the Meikleour hedge is safe because the Act says that hedges of historic or cultural importance get special consideration.

You would think that you would be within your rights to do that but that's not what the law says... however unfair it might seem.

That's an interesting moot point. The right to roam allows you to roam. But I am not so sure it allows you to take access to land to record information for the purpose of tactical advantage in a civil matter. Personally I can't claim any expertise on how the law stands on that point, and to speculate further might be prejudicial. Keep it simple is what I would profess.

If your citrcumstances are as worrying as you describe them to be, you have my sympathy. I am based in Scotland (not far from you) and I will add my say for what it's worth. Firstly I think Wolfie's advice is generally the right tack to take but with a couple of refinements I would suggest. The first is that the Occupier's Liability Act strictly speaking would not apply here. But the Act (and the scottish versions) are reallly just statements of the common law, they don't change the common law but they make proof easier. The Acts apply to harm or damage to you while visiting someone or while on their land. That isn't your situation, you are worried about damage or harm to you and your property from a tree on someone else's land that could fall into your land. Fortunately and quite sensibly the legal duties on the tree's owner are fundamentally the same as under the Acts. But just to summarise that bit, there is no statutory duty (i.e. ACt of parliament or the scottish assembly), but there is a clear common law duty. Second thing is that in Scotland the ability of local authority to intervene in such a situation is significantly less than in England/Wales, as we do not have teir Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. In effect in circumstances like this the Council can't do anything. So you are left with common law. What does it say? It basically says that the tree's owner has a duty to ensure that his tree does not cause harm or damage to a neighbour. Two things to note right away. He only has to act reasonably if he should foresee harm or damage. Not just cut down all his trees in case they harm someone. Also this is a duty, not an obligation. The effect of that is not that he is guaranteeing your safety, just that if there is harm or damage his actions and inactions that could have prevented the harm or damage will be examined closely. In effect he cannot be compelled to do anything, perhaps until it is too late. It would indeed be a good idea to have the tree inspected from a distance, on your behalf. The report will be of limited usefulness, as many aspects of the tree and perhaps one or more of its sides cannot be seen. The report could be sent (recorded delivery if required) to the owner, and to the Council if you wish as a courtesy. The report may give you some reassurance that the tree shows no outward signs of imminent failure. Even if the owner is left out of it, this might be enough to allay your own concerns. But if the remote inspection presents firm evidence of unacceptable risk, the report could also specify the works that would be required to reduce the risk to an acceptable or tolerable level. The ball will then be in the owner's court. He can have the implications for duty of care and for his insurance and perhaps his personal sequestration if he cannot meet an uninsured claim for harm or damage. But it is still his choice. I suspect therefore that if the report concludes that even with limited remote inspection the risk is unacceptable the owner will negate his own insurance. If you advise your insurers they will be largely powerless to intervene. If anything I would be concerned (and it is a very remote possibility) that they might withdraw your insurance cover. As a footnote I would add that he is not obliged to get expert inspection of his trees. Rather, recent case law suggests that he doesn't have to if he has had a quick look and sees nothing obviously wrong. However, that level of duty might increase if your expert or specialist raises specific concerns. Based on what you have said so far, I would advise a specialist report, but make sure the specialist knows what you need and why and that his report will address it. I'm not touting for business, but if you are stuck I will inspect and report for you, as you are nearby. But generally I would not like to see Arbtalk being used in that way. I hope my thoughts are of some help meantime.

Hey Tree:Tment, aren't you based in Scotland? If so, most of the advice you have had here on Arbtalk about legislation and guidance is inapplicable. And it would certainly help narrow the problem down if you could say whether it's a TPO or a Conservation Area.

HELLIWELL SYSTEM 2008 Here is a brief summary of the features of the system. The 'value' in £s is produced by multiplying together 7 numbers. The first six are factors that give a total score. The score is then multiplied by a £ value per score. Factor 1 Size - this is based on the area of the canopy when viewed side-on. The area in m2 is looked up in a table to give a factor score for example an area of 20-30m2 gives a faactor score of 3 Factor 2 Duration - this is based on the valuer's estimation of the expected duration of the amenity. This can loosely be equated to remaining lifespan. The value is looked up in the table to give a factor score. For example 5 to 40 years gives a factor score of 2. Factor 3 - Importance - this is based on the visual prominence of the tree, in terms of both visibility and the viewing population. The relevant importance is taken from a table and converted to a number. For example "Individual roadside trees" give a factor score of 2. Factor 4 - Tree Cover. This is based on the general abundance of trees. The more trees, the less special the tree being valued and vice versa. The relevant term is looked up in a table and convertyed to a number. For example, if less than 10% of the visual area is covered by trees, but at least one other tree is present, the factor score is 3. Factor 5 - Suitability to Setting. This is impossible to summarise, it is a complex set of subjective tests on how right or wrong the tree is for where it is. The chosen relevant category is looked up in a table and given a number value. For example, a tree that is "Fairly suitable (Fairly well placed. A definite asset to the landscape)" scores 2. Factor 6 - Form. This is an aesthetic classification, looked up in a table and given a number value. For example, an "average/indifferent" tree scores 1. These scores are multiplied together. In the examples I have given the score would be 3 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 72. This score is then multiplied by the current £/points value determined by a committee of the Arb Assoc and updated by the Retail Price Index. The current value is about £30 per point. In my example, the resultant value is £2,160. And that's it. The example is a smallish street tree in suburbia.

Looks like one of the Blewits (genus Lepista or Tricholoma). If in doubt don't eat it. Some of them are bad. I am interested to hear how the slicing goes, if you do it.

I got so fed up trying to remember Lawsons and Leylandii that I came up with the following rhyme. Which I can't remember. lawsons v leyland.pdf

Those pics are more convincingly Pholiota squarrosa. Their attachment to the tree is additional evidence. HAve a look at the Fungi Directory for general prognosis.