daltontrees

No. 13 is right, but you have to be a bit more specific on no. 14.

Although I still think the early signs of N. coccinea or at least Cryptococcus fagisuga are there, it is more likely to be something that has caused bark separation or killing over a whole patch of stem. Is that wee thing at the garage door a carved mushroom, is it carved from a stump? Was there another tree there until recently? Has its removal exposed the stem to scorch? Shadows show that the damage is on the sunny side. I agree with others that the installation of teh gravel will have done some damage, it is a matter of degree depending on what and how mouch cover was scraped off, what was put back and whether it was compacted.

Exemplary! Boring the hinge centre out is in my experience pretty much essential on a back-leaner, you have to put some force into pulling it over against the lean, a wide hinge is useful and the extra wood is just a hinderance to that.

It might be worth considering the possibility of Nectria coccinea. I will feel like such an idiot if it's not a Beech, but it has that lined and furrowed and white-streaked look on the bark of what otherwise should be a smooth barked tree.

There are almost 1/2 million species of beetle! The metallic green ones seem to be lumped together in the common name 'Chafer' but aren't necessarily closely related. The Green Chafer or Japanese Scarab Anomala albopilosa is pretty big, maybe look that one up.

Super, better than TV.

I did. 3 or 4 minutes a tree? Surely not possible to give client proper advice based on such a brief inspection. I am doing well if I can survey, record, risk assess and instruct interventions for 80 a day. My record is 200 in 8 hours but they were samey poplars. Anyway, it's all getting a bit off-topic. Interesting though.

Both are relevant to a survey, the first is Stage 3 of a VTA and the second determines target presence.

Eh? Didn't you read my advice to the OP? To recap, it was to see it through by getting expert opinion after a proper inspection, weigh up the odds and advise the client so that an informed decision can be made. And I agree that the advice on what the options are could include a well-informed means of doing something other than removing.

I have sympathy for the presumption of retention, but it's the client's call and the advice should be objective even if it does include the possibilities for safe retention.

I slightly disagree, I think the real skill is one step further on - enabling a client to make an informed decision. I have advised cleits int eh past that the tree is, for want of another way of putting it here, probably OK and they then ask for it to be taken down anyway because they are risk averse, and other clients I have advised that a tree is pretty dangerous and has no future and they have asked for it to be retained albeit with a bit of reduction or bracing. It's their tree, if you are a tree surgeon not being paid for advice, the client might be willing to take your advice to fell at face value and you get the paid work. That's a different skill entirely (salesmanship) from objective advice. I think talking them into expensive risk mitigation work is the same. There's no such thing as right or wrong (black or white) for trees, it is always always a matter of what is right for that client at that time for that tree at that stage of its life.

Like you, I have learnt the most from seeing trees that are to be taken down and then taken them down including that last slice. 'Christ. was I up that (and snatching 1/2 tonne branches)?' is more how I would state it. The post mortem approach was what allowed Alex Shigo to re-invent arboriculture. If you can ever answer the question 'How was that ever still standing?' you probably have a better understanding of biomechanics than Shigo, Mattheck, Broeler and Schwartz put together.

Either you keep a collection of US coins for photo opps or you are in the US. Maybe there is somewhere more local that will do fungal idents for you. Reducing the height might do 2 things, first make the the more stable, particularly in high winds and second deprive it of canopy that produces the energy to fight fungal infection. If DH is right about your tree having P. f (he usually is right) then on balance you are better to reduce risk by pruning and accelerate demise of tree than to not prune and have a longer lasting riskier tree. It's not going to get better anyway. Me, I'd reduce it gradually over a number of years until I had a squat tree to sit safely under.

YOu came on here looking for a fungus ID but understandably everyone is pitching in with prognosis and opinions of appropriate action. There seems to be consensus that this is a deadwood fungus, probably C. versicolor (but there could be 2 dpecies on the go). Drying it out and exposing it to sunshine might slow it down but it won't go away. Moree importantly, the underlying (literally) problem won't go away either. It is feeding on deadwood that has been killed by something, could be another fungus, could be mechanical damage. The fact is, it is damaged and the tree's stability is compromised. I don't think there is any doubt that it will have to go, I have never seen a Beech recover from that much damage. That said, no-one can tell from the photos how extensive the damage is because of the ivy cover. Or how deep the decay/deadwood is. So, no-one can say yet whether the tree could be retained for a while or not. You have been asked to comment and whether you realise it or not, whether you are quailified or not or have caveated your advice the owner will be relying on you to some extent and if you get it wrong he will quite rightly be aggrieved. There's at least 2 ways you can get it wrong, one is if it falls over and does damage/injury the other is that it is taken down needlessly or prematurely. I think you have to see this throuhg or back off and say you are backing off. The cautious (and possibly with a vested interest in making money) tree surgeon will always suck air through the teeth and frighten the client into getting the tree down right away. The enlightened tree-saving arboriculturalist will go to any lengths and expense to save it for a while. In between might be the right answer. What I would do would be to try and quantify (broadly) the risk in the context of targets and extent of decay and prevailing wind etc. and get an idea of how the client feels about the tree and his tolerance of risk. This is a bit of a complex subject to get into here, but risk can be tolerated by the client if he makes an informed decision to do so. In conclusion I don't think anyone knows enough to tell the cleint what to do or even to advise him of the options. But I wouldn't leave it at that, someone needs to look closer. That's either you, or someone more qualified or experienced that your client or you could refer it to or (and this is a decent option, I would suggest) you get the Council Tree Officer out to look with you. Since it is in a CA the TO would almost cerrtainly agree to a visit if a Notice is going to be submitted soon anyway. Sorry to disagree with other posters. I am hopefully just refining the general thrust of others' advice and making it easier for you to give more meaningful advice.

Sorry guys but I don't see that a log book system is proof of anything, anybody could make it up. And I think the problem with the FC rule is that they have to pay more for their work to get done because they insist on reticketing and the contractors passs this cost back on to them indirectly, also because it bombs out some of the contractors there are less people bidding and that puts the prices up too. SURELY all they need is proof of competence? That just means reassessment, not retraining. But when I did my tickets I remmeber being told you couldn't do the assessment unless you had been trained by accredited trainer. That's worrying. Then I heard the syllabus for at least one of the tickets had changed (climbing, now need to be able to identify tree species and know their characteristics). I think the answer is for there to be a specific combined refresher course (1 day) and reassessment. I could afford that.

Nightmare! I had to take my Willow down, the only big tree in my back garden, for similar reasons. Yours looks like a leaner like mine was. Ganoderma's a white rot, I think, taking all the lignin first and with it the compressive strength on the swing side. applanatum, surely? Too cocoa-brown and tightly margined to be australe/adspersum?

There is no limit on fines on indictment, only on summary conviction. The case was referred from Magistrates Court to Crown Court for sentencing, I don't know if it is strictly true but this may have taken it from summary conviction to indictment. I think the Proceeds of Crime Act would have been invoked to calculate the "amount equal to the defendant’s benefit from the conduct concerned" and to secure it by a Confiscation Order. The Planning Acts don't seem to have a definition of how unlimited fines should be calculated. Even if it was a summary conviction the Proceeds of Crime Act could be used? I am speculating...

Dang, I meant to add this. Tree houses tend to be lofty perches visible from afar and overlooking adjacent gardens. For this reason alone I would be surprised if most LPAs don't consider them as requiring planning permission. They seem to be outwith teh Permitted Development rules. However, if the same tree house cold be built on stilts or bolted to the tree, it would be the visibility and the overlooking that would be the main consideration, not the method of support. And if the tree isn't visible from a public place, surely the grounds for TPOing it are slight? Could a LPA, on getting a planning application for a treehouse that is acceptable in general planning terms of overlooking and visibility but such an intrusion to the amenity the tree provides for the public benefit, TPO a tree to prevent invasive supports being attached to the tree?

That is my point precisely. I really don't like to disagree with people on this Forum who probably know a lot more than me about English practice, but if what you propose is not one of the prohibited acts in a TPO (and these are therefore prohibited in a CA without prior notification) and does not wilfilly cause damage and does not damage the amenity of the tree, there is legally no basis for notifying the LPA. I don't therefore see how the LPA would be troubled by a few correctly chosen and carefully placed bolts. I suppose it all comes down to the definition of damage, because I suspect that no-one would wilfully put up a tree house with the objective of damaging the tree and causing it to fail and the tree house to fall down, occupants and all.

Whether consent is needed for a tree house is one question. Whether consent needed for drilling into tree is another. For example, tree houses are often built on stitls and not connected to tree, but might need consent. The things you can't do to a TPOd tree are listed in the Act. They all apply to CA trees Basically no topping, lopping, cutting down, uprooting, wilful damage or wilful destruction. If the bolting is specified and done properly such that there is no prospect of material damage to the health (damage that could be misconstrued as wilful, by which I mean deliberate and premeditated to cause damage) of the tree and the amenity it provides, one could taker the view that you don't have to notify the Council. However, if it was me and consent was required for the tree house anyway, I would include details of the drilling etc in the application and ask the Council to take that part of the application as CA ntification for the treework. You'll let us know, won't you, what the outcome is?

Doesn't look that bad, could just (as has been said) be the dirt of ages getting washed out. Whitebeams are rubbish anyway, they never heal larger wounds. Often as not these wounds are decayed right to the base of the tree.

The pictures aren't quite sharp enough to tell what the fungi are. Could be fuzzy because the fungi are fuzzy e.g. S. hirsutum. YOu wouldn't want to work for Alan Sugar. It's a reality TV show where a rich successful businessman takes on several green apprentices then subjects them to humiliating business challenges for the schadenfreudian titillation of the viewers. The winner gets given a permanent job. As he eliminates candidates, he utters his punchline 'You're fired' (although strictly speaking he should say 'you're no longer being considered for the job', but that doesn't sound anywhere near as sneering and catchy as the punchline).

What is it, then? Deadwood saprophyte, I hope, or I'm fired too.

Ah, but tree health could be an issue for the LPA. If they think re-polling could tip the tree over the edge and that the amenity the tree provides is important, they could TPO it as a response to the notice and the proposed works. Unlikely but perfectly competent use of their powers. Personally I think poplars should be left alone until they get too big, then should be removed entirely. They always look and smell ghastly a couple of years after heavy pruning. I still say bung a notice in, cover client's behind, and repoll in 7 weeks when the tree will stand it better.

I have already suggested the buckling is because the substem is flexing at the contact rather than at the fork below where it may have better mechanisms to put on extra wood. Also there may have been a limb at the rear that has gone because of the contact, and may be admitting decay. And even bare wood at the contact may be drying out the wood and compromising elasticity.