daltontrees

A sensible outcome, your perseverance has been rewarded. I suppose it wasn't the Inspector's job to clarify the law but he seems to be applying the principle of 'necessary' in the right pragmatic way i.e. necessary doesn't mean absolutely no other way of doing it but rather means no practical way. He seems then to have jumped straight to the total removal presumably accepting the evidence that the root-pruned tree would be unviable. Maybe what was useful to your client in the end was that the Council never refuted that, only refuting that there was a practical alternative to pruning.

Try Tracey Recycling in Linwood.

Up here in Scotland I have seen a few walnut trees, not a single nut to be seen. Too cold I think. You must be getting a last sniff of the gulf stream or something down there.

I don't have a list, it's in my head. However, you might find the attached ISA form instructions a good starting point for learners. Presumably I don't need to explain teh difference between VTA and risk assessment, you will be able to work out easily enough which bits apply to the former and not the latter. I know for a fact the form can be downloaded for free but I can't find it just now. ISABasicTreeRiskAssessmentForm_Instructions.pdf

Definitely! Although if there are no unusual risks it should be a formality. So much of risk reduction in arb work is achieved by using people who are qualified.

It looks like the one in the centre has gills, not pores, which if so rules out Oxyporus. Rules out most of the nastys too, except of course Armillaria, which it could be. The grouping is big enough for Armillaria.

No almost about it, the husks contain all sorts of smelly chemicals including vanilla. They must be irresistible.

Sorry, pruning would be pointless, if the tree rats want the nuts they will get them. Unless you make it impossible for them to climb the trunk too. Even then, they can jump a fair distance from tree to tree. I am curious to know whereabouts you are to be getting walnuts, they usually need lots of warmth?

The best? Doesn't get any better than that. If I was you I'd be more worried then about subbing than when you are in control of your own jobs, unless its a main contractor you know and trust. I do wonder, though, when I did my basic tickets I came out of it aware of the need for risk assessments but I could then have gone sstraight into business and never thought about where the requirement came from and what the law actually says. So at least my previous posting covers that bit, anyone that wants can refer to the Regulations more fully. Ignorance of the law is no defence, but keeping it safe means you will probably never need a defence. Or a hospital.

Even self-employed people are affected by the law. Please note that what is important is that no-one is needlessly hurt. So risks should be assessed and eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level. That's not the same as 'doing a risk assessment' and sticking the bit of paper, unseen and undiscussed, in the truck. You do that and it won't protect anybody and won't cover the employer's a*se. Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999, relevant snippets below 3.—(1) Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of— (a)the risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work; and ... (2) Every self-employed person shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of— (a)the risks to his own health and safety to which he is exposed whilst he is at work; and ... (6) Where the employer employs five or more employees, he shall record— (a)the significant findings of the assessment; and . (b)any group of his employees identified by it as being especially at risk.

The only common mould i can find for on Viburnum is Botrytis cinerea. Apparently not severe enough to kill quickly. Maybe be to do with the site. I had a customer last year nearly lost a Holly, Cotoneaster and Box. Turned out the site was getting flooded by sopapy water from neighbour's blocked and burst bathroom drain.

There can't be many fungi and bacteria that can act quickly and equally effectively to kill conifers AND broadleaves. Even the honey funguses have a couple of species that specialise in one or the other. Yeasty smell suggests a fungus, but it might not be the fungus that killed the trees anad shrubs. Yeast is more like a mould than a mushroom. Could be feeding on dead material.

Didn't mean to criticise, just enjoying the speculation and debate, it is how one learns best. Your opinion is singularly the most reliable and rigorous on Arbtalk. But if the OP ever confirms it is an Alnus my money's still on P.alni. based on my own experiences and these few photos.

Complete wiht screw-on fungal brackets on hitherto unknown hosts, and larch decked out with cedar cones like baubles on christmas trees. That sort of thing? I'll bring a rope and harness...

I went for a 3/4 hour run about the campus every morning before conference. Firstly it wasnae me, secondly no hood, thirdly although I was stopping at every labelled tree, I was just trying to breathe, not switching labels. Fourthly, there was NOBODY else around. I would have spotted any label-switchers. But the fun that could have been had, wish I'd brought my pliers.

I came across what I thouyght was M.g a coulle of days ago, wasn't sure as the slugs had taken quite alot of the top off it and it hadn't fully developed anyway. So I remmebered the old 'turns black when squeezed' test. Here it is under the microscope. Pictures taken before bruising, immediately after then after 30 mins, 1 hour and 9 hours.

Give us a tree species please, OP. Sure is looking like a Phytophthora so far, though.

The way I read it was that the fungus had nothing to do with teh subsidence but that the risk of subsidence from the tree was not foreseeable and Mrs Kane would have no way of being alerted to the tree's potential to cause subsidence. Even if she had noticed the fungus and got someone out to check the tree for safety, it wasn't likely that this process would have resulted in her being told about the tree's subsidence potential. Which is probably right. So I don't think the judge does expect arbs to pick up on subsidence risk when assessing a tree's condition. After all, if you get an instruction to report on condition and risk, you don't report on root spread, soil type, moisture deficit and indeeed anything under the surface. These cases are increasingly taken it as read though that nuisance damage doesn't have to be foreseeable for the tree owner to be liable for compensation, unlike with negligence damage.

A fab conference, I doubt if there will be one like it for a long time. Were you there? It wouldn't have answered your thread but it seemed to address a lot of generalities that point to answers to most questions. For an anorak like me anyway...

Thanks David. I looked for but didn't notice any galls. We may be back on site in a few months to do some reductions and with client's consent I will run a silky through some brackets and see if there is any discernable morphology. I think he will just want to see them chomp away at the lump as quickly as possible but if I have a big saw on the go I might get to take a section throughthe big lump anyway.

'Permitted Development' strictly speaking means you don't need permission. Application met with silence means a deemed refusal. which I suppose means you may have developed unlawfully. As has been suggested, maybe get some independent planning advice. Possibly try Planning Aid, it's like Legal Aid. Good starting point for a free initial consultation.

Nuisance as you probably appreciate means two things. 1. a pain in teh *rse because of leaf fall and satellite singal. 2. A potentially actionable encroachment, a strictly legal issue.

Alas the stove went on 2 nights ago, a load of Scots pine that has been in teh living room all summer went whoosh and turned the place into a tropical hothouse. It was nice to see the flames sending a cheery glow across the room and hear the jet-engine roar of a well-ventilated stove doing its thing again.

I've seen loads of Oudemansiella mucida, this is a textbook fruiting body. Unimportant in general terms except as a symptom of other problems with a (Beech) tree, but trivial in the overall context of this tree.

Tag means nothing, it is either TPod or not. If you have already applied then good. But that is definitely Meripilus which can cause toree to go over in one from just beneath the surface especially if fruiting freely like that. If your house is in the firing line you have also the option of notifying the Council that you plan to remove it on the grounds that it is imminently dangerous. There is statutory basis for this. You need only wait 5 days before felling. Get a tree surgeon that is willing to vouch in writing for the level of urgency and to give you a quote for removal, send the report to the Council and fell the tree 5 days later. No Council in it's right mind will resist a genuinely urgent case especially where Meripilus is extensive. Worry about who pays later. Get it assessed and then if recommended get it down.