daltontrees

Thanks for bringing that case to the attention of Arbtalk. It deserves a little analysis. Sorrty but I have rather neglected this thread in favour of earnign a living, but I should get back to it soon. What I have in mind is outlining each of the currently used systems and then assessing their strengths and weaknesses. BUt i don't mind saying in advance that CAVAT is fundamentally limited. It starts off as a pretty decent valuation then jumps into fantasy land at the last moment, and as such isn't a valuation.

The gills are fully decurrent, (running right down the stipule or stem and petering out there) in the first picture. That pretty much rules out Pholiota and Armillaria mellea. Pleurotus comes to mind. The gill attachment can't be seen in the rest of the pictures. Can't really tell anything except that they have gills, not pores, and some of the stems appear scaly. There could be 2 species present. Did you conclude that the fruiting bodies were physically attached to the tree?

Try Ganoderma ? applanatum.

BY someone who has no feedback score and has only been on ebay for a month. And spells 'either' 'iver'.

Revised Guide to Qualifications and Careers in Arboriculture Leaflet NOW AVAILABLE - - Arboricultural Association The AA has just revised its leaflet on th subject, see the link to download it.

I think most people are too apathetic to bother with a revolution. And thus we get what we deserve and deserve what we get. The trees just get what they get, poor things.

Incidentally, and I have just spotted this, the scottish Act does not give a minimum height for high hedge notices. Now, this has interesting implications. The first thing that occurs to me is that the courts have in England been obliged to accept the assumption that excessive cutting could kill a hedge and would result in it ending up less than 2 metres high, and that is not sanctioned by the Act. This has I am sure been upheld in written appeal decisions. Secondly, there have been cases where the calculations in the guidance have produced an action hedge height of less than 2 metres and the 2 metres has been taken as the appropriate height because the Act says that's the lowest it can go. Sensible, I think. So if you remove the 2 metre rule as the scottish Act does, there is no reason to stop at 2 metres or not to kill the hedge completely. It is anyone's guess why the MSPs have gone for this. Bear in mind that they started with the wording of the English Act and then modified it. Someone at some point made a conscious decision to remove the 2 metre rule. Hmmm...

I appreciate the attempt at clarity of purpose that you are attempting to advance. Would that it were that simple. A TPO consent and a planning consent are not in law the same thing and a partially implemented TPO consent is not the same thing as a parially implemented planning consent. Have a look nto "citation?" and you will find out what I mean.

I am very grateful for rhe reasoned response. I am inclinded to agree and to view this from the elevated position of your experience of cherry which otherwise it would take me years to earn. The 'bend' seems to have a failed 'straight ahead' growth and a failed left turn but the right turn has succeeded. If as the next response to the post suggests there is some constriction on phloem flow without stopping xylem flow (and your suggestion of bacterial canker seems not just possible buit probable) then it starts to make sense. I have a strangled conifer stem out the back that like the following post shows a puffing out above (= distally to) the constriction. Family and income permitting, I'll dissect it too. And post the photos.

Nice, guy in the boat saves the chainsaw and leaves the muppet in the water.

No! As has been said, the Council might approve removal because they think they will get a replacement planted. But they might not agree to a reduction. The only way officially to cover yourself is to put in 2 applications simultaneously. One to remove (and replant, or let the Council make that a condition of consent), one to reduce. If you explain verbally to the TO that client hasn't made mind up yet I'm sure he'll be OK about it. Officially the Council can't reject either application.

I couldn't stop myself. Here is the dissected bend whrer the odd thickening starts. Remember, the thicker part is further from the trunk than the thin part. Any more thoughts from anyone? I will keep these bits and dry them out then sand and stain them to try and trace the grain a bit better.

Inquisitive but busy and dissections come after income and family.

I see what you mean, but there was absolutely no evidence of support near the thickening. There was a tiny spot of decay at the thickening, I still have the relevant branch and if I get a moment tomorrow I will try and disect it.

Don't think so, it was 4 metres up in a 9 metre high tree, the only branch showing this characteristic. I appreciate the response though, 170 views and 2 responses...

I was pruning a cherry yesterday and I came across this. A branch about the thickness of your thumb, but as it got closer to the stem it narrowed to about the thickness of a pencil. First pic is the whole branch. Second shows the point of narrowing, looking towards the stem attachment. The third is looking the other way, out towards the tips. Anyone got any ideas what has caused this?

Very helpful, thanks. Point well made and taken.

Hey, is that you in the video? I was taught from day 1 that a planting pit in clay soil is a recipe for girdling roots. Particularly if the sides of the planting pit are smooth, the new roots just bounce off them and circle round instead. Seems to me a tree root ball in a socket of slithery clay is just waiting to blow over. Personally I have never heard of planting a tree in a manufactured bowl of clay to keep water in. If anything the sides of planting pits should be scarified.

Yeah, reallly really quiet. Basically you sign up, some lazy git somewhere wants tree work done for tuppence hapenny and doesn't care who does it or how good the job is and can't be bothered even searching on Yell or Google for someone local, they fill in a form online and send it off for free. You and 5 other guys get an email or text with the contact details, then it's a mad rush to get there first. Half the time the lazy git takes the first quote he gets and won't answer the phone to the other companies. I was on it for a short while, you pay £15 to compete with 5 other people for a £60 hedge cut. Service Magic gets £6 x £15 = £90, you get £60 - £15 = £45 and everyone gets pissed off. I told them to shove it. What a total waste of money. They pestered me to re-subscribe but i'd sooner chop my own hands off with the wrong side of a blunt Silky than reward them for exploiting Joe Public's laziness.

Quoting myself here, bit odd but... The 'Proper maintenance of waste land' provisions seem to have been modified or commenced in the Housing and Planning Act 1986 (see Scedule 11 para. 22 if you are intersted, I can't figure out what it means).

If you're looking in, Tony, can you please explain (briefly) what you meant by 'pat on the back'? It could help me conclude my perspective on TEMPO.

Town & Country Planning Act 1971. It may have been re-enacted but I couldn't find a more modern provision. It's headed 'waste land', so a zoom throuhg the headings in the 80 Act might turn it up. I can give you the scottish reference but that's not much use.

That's kind of what I am getting round to. I wish there were more 'savvy arbs' who knew the limitations of these systems. Neither Helliwell nor CAVAT are properly valuations. They are multiplied by some fairly arbitrary number that doesn't bear up to examination. AS I have said before, this thread may be of interest to a wider audience than the few that are contributing to it, and as such comparing apples with oranbges is exactly what is needed until people realise that (i) if you are counting fruit, that is fine but (ii) if you're counting apples it's not only wrong but it's downright misleading.

Definitely worth a read but (and I don't mind being controversial) far from convincing as proof of the validity of CAVAT. He says" As responsible tree owners, we cannot allow people or firms to get away with damaging our trees, and CAVAT is an effective way to hit the culprits where it hurts and reduce the likelihood of them reoffending." The fear of expensive litigation and of the unknown (bearing in mind we are talking about builders, with no knowledge about tree valuation, who damaged trees) is enough to make them back down. How many of them carried out their own CAVAT valuation, and cross checked it with a Helliwell and CTLA valuation, and then folded because of the overpowering credibiulity of the Council's case? Not many, I suspect. If any. How about if he had said "As accountable public bodies, we cannot allow people or firms to get away with damaging our trees, and CAVAT is an effective way of demonstrating the cost to the public purse and recovering that amount from the culprits." But he didn't. It just sounded instead like sabre-rattling.

It took a bit of digging but I found it. Section 65 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1971 "If it appears to a local planning authority that the amenity of any part of their area ... is seriously injured by the condition of any garden, vacant site or other open land in their area, then ... the authority may serve on the owner and occupier of the land a notice requiring such steps for abating the injury as may be specified in the notice .."