daltontrees

No. 25

No. 24, should be just enough in this pic to get it.

No. 23

Sorry guys and gals I have been preoccupied with other things for a few days. Here's the rest of the pictures. No. 22

Table 3.1 in Tree Roots in the Built Environment is an analysis of the actual roots of a great number of trees that were blown down in a storm at Kew. Tabe 3.2 is probably what you want, the main properties of roots of the main tree species in Europe.

Looks like the rope broke at the lower shackle. I suppose it doesn't matter how strong the rope is, if you bend it round a tight radius like a shackle it's going to break.

The only nes allowed to use the logo are AA approved contractors and consultants. Anybody else uses it they will hammer you. If you ever go to the conference, membership saves you £105. Woth joining just for that if you plan to go.

Absolutely, if there is any doubt at all about who gets the profits. Fundamentally you need to have the security of tenure to justify your long-term aim. If you can get the trees grown and harvested and the land reinstated before the end of the lease then I can't see why a landlord would be bothered. Some leases will say that the tenant gets compensated for improvements or unharvested crops at the end of the lease, but the landlord's consent for some improvements is usually required, largely for this reason. There should be grants available, and if so you may have to involve the landlord in the application process anyway.

And I find it helps to let them know that you have read the Act and won't be brushed off. Benefit of teh doubt for 3 minutes then straight for the jugular. Time's money, even more so when you're doing TPO applications for free.

Sure looks like Phaeolus schweinizii. Personally I've never seen any tree last too long after showing fruiting bodies. It's a pity you can't see the whole tree to tell if it is straightening up naturally higher up the stem and therefore whether the lean is old. Also can't tell from photos whether there is rootplate lifting or abnormal butressing. I have no hard evidence to back it up but several cases of P.s I have seen I have attributed to infection after root tearing following rootplate heave but without knowing detailed history, it could be chicken-and-egg. If this one's going to flatten a house there must surely be a case for definite identification of fungus and bit of investigation by hand-dig of the state of the root(s) in that sector. Doing the old Metheny & Clark thing risk = presence x probability x harm, you've got a permanent target, serous damage would be caused and unless you can get your probability of failure down to less than maybe 1:100,000 you've got a (HSE definition) unacceptable risk.

Such is the stuff that blood-boiling is brought on by. Know what, if you're abating a nuusance or complying with some statutory imperative (like not obstructing the highway), you don't even need permission. As far as I can see, if your plan makes it unambiguous which tree is affected by the Notice and you get a refusal or a deemed refusal because the Council won't register the application, please on behalf of all jobsworth-detesting arbs everywhere appeal it and you will win. The Act doesn't say you have to make it possible for the Council to identify the tree without getting off its lazy arse, it just says it has to 'be accompanied by a plan which identifies the tree(s) on which work is proposed'. The Government Guidelines say that 'The applicant must provide a sketch plan which clearly shows both the main features of the properties affected by the application and the location of the trees contained in the application. A formal location plan, drawn to scale, is not required.' Send it to me, I'll take it to appeal for you for nothing.

Maybe she used a crossbow? I have attended for 2 cat rescues, both times the cat made it down before I got there.

If a Council tries to over-protect a tree, you appeal and if you're right an application that was refused will then be granted. However, trhere ris no right of appeal against the Council making and approving a TPO, all you can do there is get TPod, then apply to prune or fell, get a refusal and then appeal. So back to my original point about the original question. I agree entirely that 'This whole issue is about an informed balance between what is best for all involved' but I think it is wrong for any Council to say beforehand that it will refuse some types of applications. How can a balance be struck if there can be no debate, no open-minded consideration of all the pros and cons for everyone involved? There can't.

Got to be Prunus, I think I can see glands at the base of the leaf.

It does to me but don't forget that TPOs are about a harmonious relationship between the tree and the public. How the owner feels is immaterial. That's what the Council is saying in a roundabout way.

No. 21

No. 20

Foliage for No. 16

Answer 13 Acer monspessulanum (Montpellioer Maple) , as someone correctly identified. Answer 14 Catalpa bignonioides (Indian Bean Tree) Answer 15 Cryptomeria japonica (Japanese Cedar)

Sorbus torminalis, Wild Service Tree

I am curious too to know about the specifics of the tree. For now I am sticking to the line that only removal of the danger could be justified, not removal of the whole tree. And I always thought that there was no such thing as no owner, and that grey areas were dealt with by something called the 'doctrine of lost grant' or something like that which allowed for defective titles to be remedied to take into ownership these bits of no-mans-land.

There are two questions in the original question. The first is, is this the right policy for the Council to adopt and apply consistently? That's what everyone seems to be talking about in this thread. The second is (and please note that this is a different point form the first one), is the Council within it's rights to apply this policy to all TPOs. Andy Clark is the only one so far that seems to have alluded to this version of the question. You might think I am just being my usual pedantic self but hopefully people can see that if the answer to this question is no or in fact anything other than yes then the first question doesn't matter. The legislation says that Councils can make TPOs "If it appears to a local planning authority that it is expedient in the interests of amenity". That's all it says about the purpose of TPOs. And I mean that's ALL! The things you can't do are listed in the Act (e.g. Lopping, Topping, Cutting Down etc.). Exemptions for circumstances are listed in the Act and the Regulations (e.g. Abatement of Nuisance, Dangerous etc.). But nowhere does it say anything other than that TPOs are there to preserve amenity. The Guidelines are just, that, someone centrally interpreting what the Act means. They have no legal force. If anyone can point out anywhere in tehm that says Councils should publish and enforce policies that countermand the Act, plase tell me and I will apologise. It follows in my somewhat linear view of this that if any works are proposed and are a subject of a TPO application, the application should be considered on the grounds of the effect on amenity, nothing else. And even then, the effect on public amenity is paramount. What I mean is that the removal of limbs on a side of the tree that cannot be seen from any public area, as long as these works don't endanger the health of the whole tree (and therefore don't endanger the public amenity it will continue to provide) should be of no concern to the Council. So what right does the Council have to publish the rules that it will use in determining TPO applications. The answer is and can only be none. The Council would be within its rights to propose a policy that defines where it considers amenity to be an important issue, possibly even the species that it considers important and those that it doesn't. In the closely related world of Conservation Areas, this is exactly what happens when the Council draws up a Conservation Area Appraisal. It should consult on this proposed policy, if it doesn't it could nullify the policy. It should have due regard to representations about the proposed policy. The policy should then be approved, rejected or modified by the elected members, and then published following the appropriate Committeee hearing. In my experience what the Council has no right to do is the following (i) redefine amenity for its own purposes (ii) create a policy that has not been consulted upon and approved by elected members and (iii) draw up a set of arbitrary rules, however well intended, about how it will deal with future TPO applications. TPO applications are in very many respects like planning applications. If the Council decided in advance that it didn't like UPVC conservatories in south-facing back gardens and said that any future applications that had one of these in it would be rejected not only would they lose every planning appeal and then get costs awarded against them but they would soon bin the policy and fire the idiot that came up with it. Yet these tree policies appear to do just that, they are in danger of applying rules to applications that should lawfully be decided on their individual merits purely and entirely based on public amenity. I agree with Councils that take a consistent and firm stance on tree works. But the rule shouldn't be whether the works are necessary or unnecessary, it shoudl be whether the extent of loss of amenity from the works is acceptable. Rant over. I've had a cr*p day, sue me if I'm wrong! But I don't think I am.

No. 19

No. 18, I'd be surprised if anyone gets this one.

Cheers, just got a copy on eBay for £0.99.