daltontrees

I've missed a couple of days of the debate. I guess it wouldn't have mattered much. But just to clarify what I said before, I am not undercutting people every day, and never knowingly anyway, and maybe my business sense is not good enough to always do good work (which I always do) AND make a good profit (which I sometimes do) but sometimes if I see a couple of blank days in the diary coming up I will happily price a couple of jobs a little cheaper so that I am busy and at least bringing something in. The only difference between that and normal rates is I make enough to earn a groundy wage for the day and nothing going back in to the company for a rainy day. I don't have high fixed overheads so it doesnt matter too much. It is what I would be paying a groundy anyway, and he's not complaining about the rates. It woild be nice to be in a market where some of you guys are where you can afford to decide which customers you work for or which kind you look for. Meantime among all the hypothetical debate about keeping up industry rates to a fair level (whatever that is) and the state of the economy, here Objective One has been met (just about) which is we have a roof over our heads and shoes on our feet. I am providing for my family. The rest is, relatively speaking, hot air.

The prize goes to Mr Barton, it is indeed Quercus agrifolia. And that Zelkova must be Z. carpinifolia?

If you're going on your CS38, I'd say best advice is not to hit the ground, running or otherwise.

More specifically, COCIT up!

I will be sticking a few logs on to burn tonight, it is chilly, wet and breezy up in Glasgow area. 8 days adter midsummer. Got to underprice some Ash jobs soon to boost my stores for next winter which will probably be a long one and start in about a month's time.

I reckon that with what you have said, the true thing or process that is being compartmentalised is colonisation, whether it brings decay or dysfunction. It would have made for an interesting acronym for distal wall 1 compartmentalisation...

Now why didn't I think of that? I'll give you half of the fee I get for my advice on this one.

Fortunately I have low prperty overheads. I can do 2 guys and a truck for way less than £400, if I don't someone else will. Better to work for a fairly miserable takehome than sit at said home penniless and fume at the state of the market, lack of regulation, the number of cowboys etc. The state of the market is a reflection on vast oversupply of workers compared to 5 years ago and inability of most people who feel their skills are undervalued to switch to another trade, where competition is just as bad. Doing good work sorts the sheep from the lambs in the long-term. I can't do poor work if I try! My clients often get top quality for cowboy prices from me. Word soon gets around that you are good. And cheap. The latter is negotiable when you reach a new referral client. The former isn't.

Shigo, who coined the CODIT acronym, had D as Decay but in hindsight it could probably be applied more generally to Dysfunction.

Jokes aside, I would probably give the TO an off-the-record call to explain that client isn't going to let it go and is considering appeal. I should have consulted the Guidance Notes earlier, unfortunately I am trying to carry the E&W ans SActtish systems in my head simultaneously. Anyway, the E&W Guidance says - "Whether the branches or roots of a protected tree can be cut back in this way under the exemption has not been settled by the Courts. In the unreported case of Sun Timber Co. Ltd. v Leeds City Council (a case involving overhanging branches) it was decided that the exemption applies only where the nuisance is 'actionable', in other words where the overhanging branches are causing, or there is an immediate risk of their causing, actual foreseeable damage. If this interpretation of the exemption is correct the LPA's consent would be required under the TPO before cutting back branches or roots which are not causing damage." I get this odd feeling that a refusal was technically competent but that root pruning would be exempt and so would be removal of the remainder of the tree. An appeal might result in the Inspector saying there needn't have been an application at all. Even if he is sympathetic to the Council's technical view, the appelant could face his own costs. The money might bebetter spent recording the damage and assessing the likely post-pruning stability. This could provide the evidence needed to defend a prosecution. I cannot see that the Council, once it gets to the Legal Dept, would genuinely pursue prosecution if there is little or no public interest to be served and if there is a significant question mark over the strength of its case. Ho hum...

Noted, thanks. I have really only come across P.s in Sycamore. It seems to progress well where a wound allows for draining of the decay ares, possibly allowing bettere aeration. Might well progress upwards from that wound. I would certainly be getting up thre to tap, sniff, poke, hoke and perhaps bore. In both senses, ha ha! The loss of cellulose and compressive strength at that elbow could be cause for concern. I suppose it would bhelp to know when the wound was made, to see if the occlusion is progressing at a rate that will complete Wall 4 before the extent of decay and loss of strength reaches critical.

It looks like Prunus padus to me. The two distinctive things for ID would be base of leaf shape and the two cherry glands on the leaf stalk, both covered in the pic. I believe all the Prunus padus subgenus are fairly high in cyanide, with a history of poisoning browsing animals.

Inspection certainly required. Any grounds for differentiating between P. squamosus prognoses on Acer and Fagus?

It most certainly is a Cherry. I don't see any graft. If you get the foliage lower, why bother with deadwood removal, won't it be invisible? You may just open up the tree to infection unnecessarily.

I have done something like this before, but what I did was give a voucher for £250 worth of tree and shrub work, the winner gets you out to quote for work, you agree a price and only then do they let you know that they have the voucher. That way it's genuine. And you can know beforehand the total cost to your company. And it can be gift-aided and tax-deductible. And your concern about local tree company winning is covered. And bidders know the face value of voucher, setting a tone for bids or for fixing the charity value of the voucher at say £100.

As before, I would be obliged if you would let us know the outcome. I am quite irrationally getting annoyed at your Council's attitude, maybe though they just need it put to them very plainly, I wouldn't have the appetiete for a long game.

I will have to go and look again at P v Northhampton. But the law can sometimes be an ass. I think you have to stand back from these things sometimes and see the situation for what it is. To quote myself " The neighbour still is at danger, his visitors are still at danger and his property is still getting damaged. The law cannot possibly be construed to prevent him doing whatever he needs to do about it, just because a tree has outgrown its usefulness."

Agree, it's probably P. squamosus which is pretty slow-moving and unlikely to cause failure in isolation.

I tried to edit my previous messsage but it failed. I was just going to clarify my last comment. The neighbour could remove roots, creating a dangerous tree, the owner could then remove it. In my reading of the legislation being permitted without consent. The apllication anticipated this and (sensibly and I think reasonaby) proposed pre-empting it by removing the whole tree.

Here is the exact wordign of the 1990 Act, with all the extraneous wording removed "no [TPO] shall apply ... to the cutting down, uprooting, topping or lopping of any trees so far as may be necessary for the prevention or abatement of a nuisance." It doesn't say 'actionable nuisance', but I suppose that is implied. I am not in favour of unnecessary tree removals, and as you say a short-term fix may be possible for damage that we don't know the extent of, but it's only going to get worse. I am not aware of any significant driveway cases, but the generality of what constitutes nuisance is so well established that if it were my tree I wouldn't have to look any further. I think the OLA duty could be satisfied by a partial repair but the damage and the danger to the neighbour are nothing to do with OLA and there is no direct comparison with the neighbour's need to be reasonable in considering whether he wants to tolerate damage and danger to himself. Following the process seems to have got the owner nowhere. The neighbour still is at danger, his visitors are still at danger and his property is still getting damaged. The law cannot possibly be construed to prevent him doing whatever he needs to do about it, just because a tree has outgrown its usefulness. I would love to see how an appeal would pan out.

Good! Thanks for clarifying.

I'm with you on most of that but the neighbour's position is surely affected not just by the OLA duty of care but by his own safe enjoyment of his property, e.g. not twisting his own ankle, and also by the damage being done to his property which is not of his doing? Whereas there may be a defence in the OLA that the obligation to abateme trip hazards are modified by the reasonableness inherent in the OLA duty of care, there is no such reasonableness test that I know of in the other two cases namely danger to himself and damage to his property. The TPO might only show the tree position above ground, but it is the tree that is preserved including the roots wherever they might be. The neighbour is affected by the TPO even though it's not his tree. I still feel the Council's refusal is technically correct but that the neighbour has an immunity from prosecution (for removing tree roots) that is clearly stated in primary legislation. I can't see that he has to find a more elaborate and expensive solution because of the TPO. Even if the TPO is pre 1999 and is for a tree of outstanding amenity value and justifying an Article 5 Certificate, the immunity from prosecution is unchanged. So if he removes roots and tells the owner thst the tree is probably dangerous as a result, he is still within his rights. And if the owner is satisfied that the tree is indeed dangerous, he is within his rights to notify the Council and then remove it. No permissions are required for root removal or tree removal, no?

I am not surprised at the Council's decision but I am incredulous at the rationale. As you say, the Council has taken it upon itself to try and control how the nuisance can be abated. Which is for want of a better or any other appropriatte word, wrong. There may be one technicality here. You applied for removal based on intended root pruning making the tree dangerous. Instead, if the neighbour had pruned the roots to abate the nuisance, he would have been immune from prosecution because thats what the Act says. Then the tree could have been so dangerous that it's immediate removal was required, and again the owner would be immune from prosecution (because, again, that's what the Act says). But because you applied for consent for the whole solution, a refusal might be technically competent but not for the reasons stated by the Council. Good luck with this. You could get the neigbour to prune the roots then chop the dangerous tree down (giving Council 5 days' notice). Or appeal against the refusal. Or persuade the neighbour to spend money on resurfacing... maybe not.

Tut tut, where has your razor-sharp IDing gone? It is not ilex. Here is another photo. You obviously still need the practice.

I don't think there is a P&D list for the PTI assessment. It's open-book except for the fungal ID part. Anyone with a good memory could pass the written assessment without knowing anything much about trees but will get a serious fright when then going out unaccompanied to survey trees, either during the practical assessment or afterwards.