daltontrees

No worries, didn't even see your post until now. Anyway, looks like something has changed around the base and roots. Still waiting for a history from the OP.

I think they are just consulting on the format of the web-based guidance to replace the Blue Book. There is apparently no intention to consult on whether the guidance or the law that it is based on is correct. Statutory undertakers are exempt from Planning legislation control of trees.

Looks just as likely they have been reduced and grouted blockwork put in place. If so, where do you start to explain why that's a bad idea?

No. 26, last one and a bit of a challenge.

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.