daltontrees

Up here it is and has been for decades quite common for developers to pay the Council a one-off sum to maintain open spaces forever. Of course eventually no-one can remember what happened but the maintenance continues becaue it's on a work schedule. Developer is long-gone, happy to wash hands of open spaces that may not have been properly conveyed to residents or Council. In my experience Council maintenance means nothing when it comes to legal liabilities for trees.

Q1. Yes. Q2 No. I think it really is a straightforward as that. If, as is surprisingly often the case, the Council has been maintaining for years on the basis of some long-forgotten agreement or default arrangement or commuted sum paid to them. And just because the Council maintains grass doesn't mean they maintain trees. I had a case like this a year ago, we had a 10m cherry slung and on the winch ready to fell it and remove it, within an hour we had COuncil tree officer and 4 of the 5 management committee members there and the affected owner, just about fist-fighting. Turned out Council had management responsibility for grass but not the trees. It arose from a deal done with the estate developer 30 years ago. Council washed its hands of the tree responsibnility at the first sign of trouble. Chopping the tree down on the client's instruction sounds like a kindness. If the owner emerges, what recompense can he claim for removal of a dangerous tree? He could possibly prtove it was wrong to remove it but it would be a pyrrhic victory if the measure of damages was zero. Taking ownership of land just to deal with a dodgy tree seems like overkill. What about Highways Act powers? Or Local Govt Misc Provisions Act 76?

In Scotland you have to have SEPA approval to use near water and have to have notified all potentially affected roiparian proprietors. Took 3 weeks for the last approval, SEPA (our EA) were not at all relaxed about it but OK when they knew we had herbicide ticket and were brushing on the Glyphosate. We had to restrict the amount on site in case of spillage. Drop any amount of that in the river and it causes devastation. Get it applied around the cambium within 10 minutes if final cut, within a day max it will have done the required damage . Clingfilm if required. Would paint will do too. Drilling is not as effective as targetting the cambium and applying very soon after felling. If you can't wait for EA approval leave the stump high and go back to it later with approval, do final cut and dose it.

I am interested anyway if you get the hance to dig out the reference.

Just read the article, what a load of old shirt! A mixture of nonsense, possible allusion to Meripilus perhaps and some dodgy lore about summer branch drop. Of course youy can't predict whether any tree will fall over, healthy trees fall over it is part of the spectrum of individual characteristics within a population. The runts of the litter fall over. But you can predict if sick ones will fall over prematurely. As someone has said, survey periodically and you will generally spot it before someone gets hurt. Don't get a gardener to do it, though.

Ahh, I have been caught out using the old terminology. I was aware of a recent change but just used the familiar terms to illustrate the point about quantification of risk. Up here it has always been much simpler. Trees can be removed without permissin or notice if it is urgently necessary in the interest of safety. There has never been a need to categorise why it was dangerous. But I see now from the English Regs 2012 that you have a similar overrider, 'Urgently necessary to remove an immediate risk of serious harm'. I hate to admit it but it's even better and clearer than the Scottish wording. See how well it fits in with quantification of risk and the HSE guidance? You still have the 5 day rule, which we have never had.

It's a big subject, I just mentioned the threshold set by the HSE. How anyone quantifies it (QTRA, THREATS, DIY-quantification, whatever) doesn't matter so much. Making a statement like you suggest which contains the terms 'high risk' and 'unacceptably high level of risk of failure' is loaded with subjective or unquantified and undefined terms. If I was making a general statement like that (as my reports tend to do) it is basically saying the same thing but less ambiguously such as 'following evidence gathered during recent inspection it can be concluded that the likelihood of failure, when combined with the frequency of presence of targets and the severity of harm/damage that could be caused the overall risk falls within the HSE's 'unacceptable' category'. You can probably tell from that that I am a quantifier and that I have read not only the QTRA stuff but the stuff that it is based on. You don't need QTRA training for that. So really I wold just be saying in this case (and it is hypothetical since I have only read a brief description and seen a photo of the tree) there's say someone present beneath the tree's fall zone 1/100th of the time, it will kill them outright if it lands on them and (the tricky bit) there is a 1/10 chance of it coming down before the next annual inspection, the risk is 1/100 x 1/1 x 1/10 = 1/1,000. The TO can try all he wants to shoot down the figures but he would have to be pursuing a prosecution for unlawful removal of a protected tree and would need to be ballsy to refute the logic behind the decision to fell if it is backed up be the evidence of lean. rootplate disturbance, possibly honey fungus, rapid dieback. All those elements affect only the 'chance of it coming down' element of the risk calculation. The other elements are much much clearer. Keeping it on-thread, I would have the tree down if the evidence backed up a risk assessment. I wouldn't be asking the TO, I'd be telling him. Hypothetically speaking.

I think it's going to depend on who was responsible for checking if License was needed. Any contractor that blamed his employee would not only be a contemptible s**t but would get laughed out of court. If contractor says to client, 'I think you might need a felling license' and the client says 'stuff that, get them down' then it's the client's fault even if he has no fingerprints on the saws. The problem is as ever that if the client gets you in to advise on the logistics of clearing a site, how long it will take etc. and how much it will cost, and the contractor does this and is then appointed. The FC comes along with a fine. Client says 'I don't know anything about trees, this guy should have told me, he's the tree guy, give him the fine' and the contractor says 'it wasn't for me to check that the client was aware of felling licenses and the need for them, I'm just the cutter'. So who gets the fine? Personally I intend never to be in that position. I advise and check anyway regardless if it's my respoinsibility.

And if the report says there is more than 1/10,000 chance of it coming down within the next year and hitting something or someone you might be within your rights to see to it right away, informing rather than asking the tree officer (5 days notice required, I think). But if you go down that route (the dead, dying or dangerous route) the onus is on the client to be able to prove retrospectively tha tthe tree had been an unacceptable risk.

Sorry, I amn't clear on whether that is a yes or no. And which little book, if you are prepared to disclose?

Me too, but I think that reputation is everything, more important than a quick buck on one job. I think you can usually tell when you're being set up by a client to take the rap if writs are flying. Anyway, it has been useful to ponder the finer details, will stand me and hopefully any person reading this in good stead sometime. I just need to remmember the key words 'immediately required' AND 'authorised by planning permission'.

True, we've all done it or been leant on to do it. See my reply to btggaz, it is not unlawful to clear a site before making planning application. It is for the LPA to foresee threats to trees that have valuable amenity and then protect them by TPO before they can be removed. This is rarely the case with development sites since the TPO will be challengable if the trees are not highly visible from a public area before development starts. So hypothetically speaking if that 300 tree site required a Felling License because of the volume of timber, none was applied for, on Monday a local do-gooder got the Forestry Commission down there, there was a breach of Forestry Act, someone's getting fined for it... is it you or the developer? Who would have been expected to be aware of the need for Felling License? If it's the Arb he should have advised client. If it's the client the Arb is in the clear although some of the s**t will stick to his reputation anyway. Sounds like commercial gambling to me. I'd always make sure client knows that there is a possible breach of Forestry Act and then if he wants me to go ahead anyway I will be there at dawn on Saturday morning, with hand saws if so required and so instructed and so priced.

I would think that if the conditions do not relate to or affect trees then the consent is valid for immediate implementation. However, it is common for consent conditions to say things like 'no work will commence until details of brick colour is submitted and approved by the LPA'. If there is such a condition that says 'no work will commence until a scheme of replanting has been submitted and approved by the LPA' then the situation is clear and no trees can be removed. It is usually clear from reading the consent and conditions which ones hold up development and which ones hold up completion and which ones prevent specific tree removal. In my experience it's not even that clear though. As is well known, except in TPO or CA sites the developer can clear the site of trees before making a planning application. That is perfectly lawful (although a felling license may be required). If you have applied for consent, there is no more legal reason for not clearing the site while you are waiting for the planning consent to come through. However, the LPA would be deeply irritated, not helping the applicant's case. There may have been trees that the Council was considering having retained by conditions or by TPO, yet they get removed during deliberations. Expect substantial tree planting conditions to follow. Back to the point already suggested by me, if there is any impediment to getting started immediately, such as suspensive planning conditions, the Felling License exemption does not yet apply.

Super pictures. Please please tell how you managed to get the focus and illumination so perfect inside the cavity?

Interesting. Are you saying that the black material of pseudosclerotial plating and the black sheath of 'bootlaces are the same material? And can you recommend any particular text that covers the matter and aids identification of fungal species based on plating colour, shape etc? Worryingly often decay can be found in cavities with no fruiting bodies, no definitive colour or even type of decay but with plates present. If these could help with an ID of the fungi present it would be good to know.

Ha ha, nice try! Seriously though I think the 'immediately' thing is also to make sure that trees aren't removed before it is necessary, in case they are felled early on in the development just to get them out of the way and then the development gets abandoned for whatever reason. The result would be unnecessary loss of trees, which is 90% of what the Forestry Commission is there to avoid. It is a moot point but one could say that even with planning permission in place but with actual development not yet programmed in and no 'critical path' (immediate) need for tree removal it could still be an offence under the the Forestry Act to remove trees. I am probably labouring the point (but it is helping me understand and remember the distinction) that planning permission doesn't exempt you. You are exempt if you have planning permission AND development is imminent. My interpretation of course, but I would be happy to hear other interpretations.

Fair question. The Act says exemption is where felling "is immediately required for the purpose of carrying out development authorised by planning permission granted or deemed to be granted under the Town and Country Planning [Acts]". I think the "immediately" must be interepreted as for detailed consent since outline consent would never authorise the immediate start of development.

Sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying that trees can come down without the need for a felling license because the site is in the Development Plan and therefore has deemed planning consent? If that is what you are saying, it doesn't seem to be backed up (in my reading) of the Forestry Act. The exemption for development applies only if there is current consent granted. We have been holding off until this week on a development site clearance because if we had gone ahead 2 weeks ago when client had wanted we would have breached the Felling License volume threshold and the client could have been prosecuted. Whether he would have been is a different matter. He now has plannign consent and can clear without penalty. I felt it my professional duty to advise of consequences of clearing prematurely, client accepted the advice and held off. Any other contractor could have charged ahead and claimed ignorance of the status when the FC turned up. It's just a question of extended professionalism that keeps clients coming back to us again and again, but strictly speaking we are under no obligation to keep him right. On the other hand if one asks in a public forum one can no longer plead or feign ignorance....

It has always looked to me like the NHBC guidelines are set up for engineers rather than arbs. After all, if the engineer can identify the tree species, he can look up everything else on the tree side of the equation. Can the arb do the same? Probably not, because the Plasticity Index of the soil needs to be known and unless you are going to dig trial pits and do cone penetrometer tests and be able to interpret the results, you can't complete the equation. So what can you say? There are nearly no shrinkable clays in Scotland but I am asked about it regularly, it is good to be able to cover the basics but anyone who wants a yes/no answer in the course of a (free) tree quote is dreaming. Firstly there is no such thing as yes/no, only balance of probabilities after all factors have been investigated. Secondly, why would anyone stick their neck out on such a potentially litigous and expensive minefield for nothing? They wouldn't. I think you're quite right to start with 'I'm no expert on the engineering side, and the soil type hasn't been confirmed, but for that species and distance the general industry standard suggests that ....' If I had a Norway Spruce that close to a house on stiff clay soils I'd be more worried about a shallow rootplate and the whole thing blowing over.

Wish I was so sure!

It's a bungee strop, how fancy does it need to be? Standard harness gear loops rip out at 40kg, the ring on a Stihl 200T pulls out at 40kg (less!) and the stitching on a bungee strop should do the same. The last one I'd want to trust would be the strop. The Teufelberger is rated at 2kN, the equivalent of 200kg dead weight. Could be useful in some situations but I just use a cheapo bungee strop or for a heavier saw I use a webbing sling.

Wewll, the Kelly/O'Callaghan article (at p.11) clarifies that the 'water demand' term is a misnomer and that vertical distribution of roots is what matters. Ove rhe years some species have been moved category, suggesting that the debate is not over.

Red Oak and Willow are on the NHBC list of high water demand, Ash is Medium water demand, as is Cherry Laurel. All in all, thirstier than a tree squad at the end of a summer's day shift. Zone of influence is 125% of mature tree height for High water demand. The Oak might already be influencing soil moisture levels at the new building. That is not to say it is a problem, but is good to be aware of it. The main piece of info missing now is whether shrinkable clays are present. If not, end of problem in my opinion. If yes, it would be worth pencilling in an arb inspection in 3 years' time to assess. Hope this helps. I have enjoyed looking into it and learning a few things along the way.

Here's a hint to how NHBC deals with the problems that could arise from new planting. Basically, don't plant trees or shrubs without expert advice. So I guess the foundations have nothing to spare. Relevant section is p.19 http://www.nhbc.co.uk/NHBCpublications/LiteratureLibrary/HomeownerDocuments/filedownload,15900,en.pdf It still doesn't deal with the issue of whether the foundations can cope with new trees on adjacent land that the owner or builder cannot control. Until I find out otherwise I will assume that no additional foundation is put in to cope and that thereafter the common law of nuisance would apply.

I have now! Reasonably good article, a bit pseudoscientific and partisan but makes a number of good points and refers usefully to other's documents elsewhere that have researched the question. I am not worthy to question the experienced-based judgement of the author but I am a few other people would contest the statement that it has been proven that pruning doesn't help and that there is no alternative to tree removal. It doesn't address the occasional situations where removal would cause heave but continued growth would cause subsidence and where regular pruning almost the only option. It doesn't deal with whether crown lifting would help, nor does it even mention root pruning. Root barriers are eventually dismissed on the basis that they might get breached. But I accept the generality that the tree will bounce back after pruning, with bigger leaves. The article refers to NHBC guidance from 2003 and its original creation in the 1970s. As I thought the gudance has been around for so long that it is part of the whole industry.