daltontrees

I didn't say it wasn't complicated, but the formulae are pretty simple. Huber's formula, for example, is similar what was discussed earlier, namely volume of log equal cross sectional area of log at its midpoint, times its length. Essentially simplifying it to the equivalent of a cylinder. I should have said 'I find it piss easy'. Blissfully ignorant I am to the complexities. Despite having studied it. But then, I do geometry problems for fun. I would encourage anyone to take time out to pin down a few methods. It's the mystique about mensuration that dissuades, but the maths is simple. I woud agree that the young'uns coming through in forestry probably don't have a good grounding. And for my part I have managed to sneak into the ICF without a forestry or arb degree, but I had to do it the hard way 🙂

OK if it had been logged up then average of each log would be good. Poor guy being sent out without the basics. I had one of these cases recently, FC folk everywhere measuring everything. They gave up. It was too borderline to prove anything. But I do worry for teh future, current FC capabilities and resources are dubious.

I doubt if it was that straightforward. The FC has published a book (free) on how to measure or estimate itmber volume. By far the most fickle is working out volume based only on stumps, due to basal flare (not stem taper, that is easy to allow for). Average diameter is NOT a reliable basis for caculating volume, precisely because of taper, which is not uniform along stem. This changes depending on species, habit, exposure, growing conditions, crown damage and loads of other things. So what was the outcome, did FC drop the prosecution? I don't think you can infer incompetence from the abilities of a couple of officers. But the old guard who know their stuff are fewer and fewer. Mensuration is piss easy. FC should be able to get it right, as they wrote the book.

I agree. There are situations where the proposed works will definitely muller the tree, but if it's not an important tree I can advise my client (the LPA) that they should not be bothered about poor spec or excessive works, because it doesn't matter.

I fit was me (and bearign in mind I am a bit eccentric) I'd close the fork really tight with a ratchet strap, then coach bolt it together, then take off the ratchet strap. Then wait and see what happens over the next couple of years.

This is a somewhat problematic matter in practice. The Council should only be concerned with the effect on the amentiy of the area of the proposed works. Unlike inTPO areas the tree in a CA is not necessarily already important. But if it is, the Council will want to (i) be able to envisage the immediate loss of amenity due to the proposed works and (b) know whether the works will permanently result in loss of amenity due to bad or excessive tree works and (c) be able to check that the works have been done in accordance with the Notice (and no more). An imprecise, vague or ambiguous Notice will prevent all or any of these. The Government guidance is that "The authority is advised to refer a section 211 notice containing insufficient or unclear information back to the person who submitted it. The authority may wish to provide information to help them resubmit an appropriate notice." The implication is this. If the LPA advises that the Notice is not adequately clear, then the immunity from prosecution provided by the Act does not exist and that carrying out the works would be prima facie a statutory offence. Prosecution may follow.

Unless the Council is saying that the notification is invalid, then asking a question does not reset the clock. That's why it's so important to put in a notification that is clear as to what works are intended.

6 weeks is 6 weeks. Ignore whether they are working days, holidays, weekends. There is no specific info about this. That means 'week' means what it means in everyday usage. 7 days.

I bought a Husky (not the 592) over the counter at my local dealer on Tuesday, she told me the stock she has took a year to arrive from Husqvarna. By all accounts the UK operation is (or has been until recently) shambolic. I could have got it online for a good bit cheaper but with no guarantee of immediate delivery, so I went for the 'bird in the hand' option.

This debate was nearly a decade ago. Can you remind me pelase which Slater article you are talking about?

First one is Guelder Rose, Viburnum opulus

It is. I don't think no.2 is Camellia. On the other hand, Privet does have opposite buds and leaves.

Not sterile, but commercially always reproduced as clones.

Some of the varieties produce cones. Haggerston Grey does, for sure.

Looks like Polyporus squamosus to me. Also I have never seen or heard of Fistulina on ash.

Agreed. We should have Leylandii plantations.

I have thought about this long and hard and looked everywhere for guidance, and there is none. The appropriate thing to do, therefore, is to fall back on first principles. The BS5837 Estimated Remaining Contributions bands are fairly arbitrary, but I advise clients to think in terms of the design life of their development. Housing is typically 40+, and so any tree that can be kept to provide amenity in that context is rightly an A. Bs that have ERC of 20-40 or BS that have 40+ but are imperfect specimens can make a contribution to amenity for a large part of the design life, and most LPAs will also look for them to be retained where possible. The difficulty comes at the low end of the scale, Cs and Us. What it is important to remember that although U stnads for 'Unsuitiable for retention' this is a rather inappropriate abbreviation of what U really means, namely of such low quality and short ERC that they should not prevent development of a long design life. It doesn't mean they can't be kept. And also this does not mean no trees, it usually means a requirement for tree amenity in the site somewhere else though landscaping obligations. So when can they be kept? When they are in a position that allows them to remain without being a risk due to targets and/or size. Design adjustment might or might not allow some to be kept. It's worth considering sometimes. It would I think be unreasonable for a LPA to refuse PP on tha basis of tree loss where the trees are going to be lost to natural causes anyway. In an extreme example, a site of only ash could be effectively treeless in 10 years and there is no legisalation anywhere that can force an owner to replant it (unless there is a planning application). So the smart solution for applicant and LPA is to achieve net gains by appropriate structured landscaping with trees. The distincton between C and U in terms of years is a little arbitrary. More important is that Cs are defined by their impaired condition and lack of merit but Us are defined better, by - "Those in such a condition that they cannot realistically be retained as living trees in the context of the current land use for longer than 10 years" because they are one or more of - (i) Trees that have a serious, irremediable, structural defect, such that their early loss is expected due to collapse, including those that will become unviable after removal of other category U trees (e.g. where, for whatever reason, the loss of companion shelter cannot be mitigated by pruning) (ii) Trees that are dead or are showing signs of significant, immediate, and irreversible overall decline (iii) Trees infected with pathogens of significance to the health and/or safety of other trees nearby, or very low quality trees suppressing adjacent trees of better quality NOTE Category U trees can have existing or potential conservation value which it might be desirable to preserve. The key words in there are that it is the 'current' land use, that decline is 'irreversible'.The 10 years arbitrary ERC only really makes a distinction on rate of decline. So for youg ash, there is little point in anyone arguing for their retnetion, especially if the context of development allows for sustainable planting. But for older ash the case is not so clear, they can carry on for years and there are (rare) examples of them recovering. Marginal cases coudl be kept in less trafficked parts of a site. The categorisation should NEVER be justified by the proposed usage of the site. Wanker reports that justify removal on the basis of proposed development are just that!

I'm pretty sure it IS Meripilus, as that's the way it goes at this time of year, all stringy.

I have just had to get a Felling Permission (scottish equivalemnt of a FL) for a caravan park. The Commission told me if I started without Permission they would prosecute me. I don't see any possibility of the trees around a caravan park being either public open space or garden. In other words, no exemptions.

It does negate the need for TPO consent. The Council must have got it wrong.

The TPO would still exist, even if the trees it protected are gone! Sounds like the Council was wrong in thinking a separate TPO application was required.

There is a TPO exemption for trees that have tobe removed to implement a detailed PP (a rare example of joined-upness). No separate consent required. But the removals have to be necessary (not just desirable or convenient or cheaper to do it that way). Luckily it ended well for you.

Conservation Areas are mainly about architecture. Trees are rarely part of that context unless well-established and public. Many trees can detract from CA amenity, and the Council may be happy to see them go.

Things don't get done as a matter of course... and FC can't approve felling without an application. As far as I can tell, the same situation happens in reverse. A FC does not trump CA notification requirements. TPO/CA stuff traditionally would be for different situations than FC, with little overlap, but these days Councils are TPOing more rural stuff and FC are into everything including urban areas.

Not much to add. There is no formal process or right to ask for a TPO to be considered and whereas many a TPO arises from a member of the public blowing a whistle, there's no form to fill in, no legislative right. Accordingly there's no right of appeal either. And I suspect that any complaint about the Council's behaviour would have to focus on its failure to consider the matter, rather than how it exercised its discretion as to whether to make a TPO. It has considered the matter and I think most would agree with the Council that it's not a situation for a TPO. As Chris has said, even if there was a TPO you could not protect the tree against cutting back of roots or branches to the boundary. Nor would a TPO protect you against a claim in negligence for damage to the neighbour's building by the tree. In short, TPOs are to benefit the public. The very last consideration is the benefit to the tree owner. The RHS says Thuja Brabant has ultimate height 4-8m. Maybe tell the neighbour that, and that it's not going to get much bigger.