daltontrees

I bought a Husky (not the 592) over the counter at my local dealer on Tuesday, she told me the stock she has took a year to arrive from Husqvarna. By all accounts the UK operation is (or has been until recently) shambolic. I could have got it online for a good bit cheaper but with no guarantee of immediate delivery, so I went for the 'bird in the hand' option.

This debate was nearly a decade ago. Can you remind me pelase which Slater article you are talking about?

First one is Guelder Rose, Viburnum opulus

It is. I don't think no.2 is Camellia. On the other hand, Privet does have opposite buds and leaves.

Not sterile, but commercially always reproduced as clones.

Some of the varieties produce cones. Haggerston Grey does, for sure.

Looks like Polyporus squamosus to me. Also I have never seen or heard of Fistulina on ash.

Agreed. We should have Leylandii plantations.

I have thought about this long and hard and looked everywhere for guidance, and there is none. The appropriate thing to do, therefore, is to fall back on first principles. The BS5837 Estimated Remaining Contributions bands are fairly arbitrary, but I advise clients to think in terms of the design life of their development. Housing is typically 40+, and so any tree that can be kept to provide amenity in that context is rightly an A. Bs that have ERC of 20-40 or BS that have 40+ but are imperfect specimens can make a contribution to amenity for a large part of the design life, and most LPAs will also look for them to be retained where possible. The difficulty comes at the low end of the scale, Cs and Us. What it is important to remember that although U stnads for 'Unsuitiable for retention' this is a rather inappropriate abbreviation of what U really means, namely of such low quality and short ERC that they should not prevent development of a long design life. It doesn't mean they can't be kept. And also this does not mean no trees, it usually means a requirement for tree amenity in the site somewhere else though landscaping obligations. So when can they be kept? When they are in a position that allows them to remain without being a risk due to targets and/or size. Design adjustment might or might not allow some to be kept. It's worth considering sometimes. It would I think be unreasonable for a LPA to refuse PP on tha basis of tree loss where the trees are going to be lost to natural causes anyway. In an extreme example, a site of only ash could be effectively treeless in 10 years and there is no legisalation anywhere that can force an owner to replant it (unless there is a planning application). So the smart solution for applicant and LPA is to achieve net gains by appropriate structured landscaping with trees. The distincton between C and U in terms of years is a little arbitrary. More important is that Cs are defined by their impaired condition and lack of merit but Us are defined better, by - "Those in such a condition that they cannot realistically be retained as living trees in the context of the current land use for longer than 10 years" because they are one or more of - (i) Trees that have a serious, irremediable, structural defect, such that their early loss is expected due to collapse, including those that will become unviable after removal of other category U trees (e.g. where, for whatever reason, the loss of companion shelter cannot be mitigated by pruning) (ii) Trees that are dead or are showing signs of significant, immediate, and irreversible overall decline (iii) Trees infected with pathogens of significance to the health and/or safety of other trees nearby, or very low quality trees suppressing adjacent trees of better quality NOTE Category U trees can have existing or potential conservation value which it might be desirable to preserve. The key words in there are that it is the 'current' land use, that decline is 'irreversible'.The 10 years arbitrary ERC only really makes a distinction on rate of decline. So for youg ash, there is little point in anyone arguing for their retnetion, especially if the context of development allows for sustainable planting. But for older ash the case is not so clear, they can carry on for years and there are (rare) examples of them recovering. Marginal cases coudl be kept in less trafficked parts of a site. The categorisation should NEVER be justified by the proposed usage of the site. Wanker reports that justify removal on the basis of proposed development are just that!

I'm pretty sure it IS Meripilus, as that's the way it goes at this time of year, all stringy.

I have just had to get a Felling Permission (scottish equivalemnt of a FL) for a caravan park. The Commission told me if I started without Permission they would prosecute me. I don't see any possibility of the trees around a caravan park being either public open space or garden. In other words, no exemptions.

It does negate the need for TPO consent. The Council must have got it wrong.

The TPO would still exist, even if the trees it protected are gone! Sounds like the Council was wrong in thinking a separate TPO application was required.

There is a TPO exemption for trees that have tobe removed to implement a detailed PP (a rare example of joined-upness). No separate consent required. But the removals have to be necessary (not just desirable or convenient or cheaper to do it that way). Luckily it ended well for you.

Conservation Areas are mainly about architecture. Trees are rarely part of that context unless well-established and public. Many trees can detract from CA amenity, and the Council may be happy to see them go.

Things don't get done as a matter of course... and FC can't approve felling without an application. As far as I can tell, the same situation happens in reverse. A FC does not trump CA notification requirements. TPO/CA stuff traditionally would be for different situations than FC, with little overlap, but these days Councils are TPOing more rural stuff and FC are into everything including urban areas.

Not much to add. There is no formal process or right to ask for a TPO to be considered and whereas many a TPO arises from a member of the public blowing a whistle, there's no form to fill in, no legislative right. Accordingly there's no right of appeal either. And I suspect that any complaint about the Council's behaviour would have to focus on its failure to consider the matter, rather than how it exercised its discretion as to whether to make a TPO. It has considered the matter and I think most would agree with the Council that it's not a situation for a TPO. As Chris has said, even if there was a TPO you could not protect the tree against cutting back of roots or branches to the boundary. Nor would a TPO protect you against a claim in negligence for damage to the neighbour's building by the tree. In short, TPOs are to benefit the public. The very last consideration is the benefit to the tree owner. The RHS says Thuja Brabant has ultimate height 4-8m. Maybe tell the neighbour that, and that it's not going to get much bigger.

If you have been diligent and exercised the right of abatement reasonably and without malice and given the tree owner fair notice of the likely resultant unstable condition, the law is on your side. Notice in writing! Offering to 'balance' the tree, however well intended, is asking for additional trouble. I'd advise not to get involved on both sides. Anyone that conmes out with stuff about Criminal Damage Act obviously hasn't read the Act.

Interesting question. A notification to the LPA under CA rules can result in consent from the LPA to remove the trees but this only implies that the LPA didn't consider the trees important enough for the amenity of the area to deserve the special protection of a TPO. Or to put it another way, that's the ONLY consideration that a LPA should apply. Conversely the Commission should have only secondary regard to amenity. These areas can cross over to each other a little, and where TPOs are concerned there are special rules which usually result in FL applications for TPOd trees being referred to the LPA to be considered under TPO rules. But for the life of me I cannot think of anything anywhere that actually says (or even suggests) that CA consent exempts you from the need for a FP.

I would suggest honey fungus.

Really really dull, but I watched to the end as it is an important matter potentially affecting the world supply of wines. I might try and reproduce the experiment tonight with a bottle of wine and a straw.

Genuinely interesting. A variation on watching paint dry, I could now listen to trees dry.

I have sent you a message with something I think is relevant.

I know it's a bit of a dull subject, but 'cavitation' in trees is where the continuous column of water and other fluids in xylem or phloem gets broken, basically an air bubble in the pipe. If serious enough it can prevent further capillary translocation.

No point in particular, it's just that you said ""the validiity... shall not be questioned in any legal proceedings whatsoever". So hard luck! ", so I was just tidying up the record that there is a right of challenge. The current form of Order in the Regulations does not mention the right of challenge. The Regulations don't oblige the Council to define the time window, but they do have to notify an interested party of the time it has to apply to the High Court. This is done by reference to the 1990 Act. I expect the average person would not be able to follow the trail of subclauses to realise that they have in fact a right of challenge. It's hard to find even when you know it's there.