daltontrees

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.

Small holes in teh exposed wood in pic 1 and 3 suggests beetle exit hole, long-dead wood. If it's Stereum it's munching deadwood, not killing. It seems to be the goat of the fungus kingdom, will eat anything anywhere.

I would agree with the last point, it looks like the RHS substem is flexing at the point of contact, making complete fusion improbable. As it is flexing other than at a natural union where reaction wood could readily be formed, it look dodgy. That rippling does indeed suggest fibre buckling and the thickening above the contact likewise suggests adaptive growth to strengthen the buckling section. At a guess, there has been a limb on the RHS stem going round the back of the LHS one that has long since been destroyed by the contact. I wonder what's going on in there now? And if dynamic bracing high up would transfer the loads of excessive movement of the LHS to ther RHS and exacerbate shear forces at the contact? If so, fixed bracing lower down closer to the contact could be better. My bracing experience is limited, I am just speculating from a theoretical perspective

I would be cautious about that, what is notified is the intended work not the intended outcome, and unlike TPO application the reasons for the work don't need to be given. LPA could argue that in not TPOing last time notification was received it has not necessarily sanctioned the longer term management of the tree at that height. It would certainly not give immunity from prosecution. Whether prosecution would take place (probably not) and whether it would be successful is a separate matter. There could also be other considerations for the Council in deciding about re-polling such as the tree's health following the last polling and whether it can stand another one just now. I think it's always safer to notify, wait and then proceed. Right now would be a bad time to re-poll up here, some of teh poplars have only been in leaf a few weeks, midsummer would be less harmful to tree, no?

Me too, first night of the year when I felt no need to put the woodburner on.

By precautionbary I just mean don't tempt fate by camping under the afffected limb.

Well, you would have to define job. The Original Poster could be remiss in tellinmg client that it's fine unless it starts to show dieback. What I mean is I would suggest they keep clear of it until the situation is more thoroughly investigated. But, what can we tell from one ooicture and a few words? Only enough to try and point a fellow Arb in the right direction and to suggest a precautionary approach.

Phew, thank goodness for that. I didn't want to hurt your feelings by saying that it didn't look at all like a chicken.

Ahem! First sign of anything serious happening might be picking the limb up off the deck. From what I have seen of Inonotus hispudus, it can result in rapid loss of strength without much if any sign of dieback. Ash can be in full leaf and then snap at the base showing nothing more than a healthy bark and a couple of rings of healthy wood and all the rest of the innards gone. Not necessarily due to this fungus but ash has no heartwood just ripewood that when it starts to decay seems to be very vulnerable. I.h causes simultaneous white rot, just about the worst kind. I would suggest you confirm the identification of the fungus. I am no expert on I. hispidus so personally I would take a precautionary approach and assume the worst until otherwise demonstrated. I certainly wouldn't tell client not to worry nor would I immediately take the fungus as proof of the need to take the tree down.

Neither, I'd say they're talking nonsense.

Sorry, I've been off for a few days. As ever the Forum has been useful for rehearsing arguments and eliminating silly mistakes before they are made. I don't do 5837 reports or give related advice every day but the debate here helps to prepare to give that advice better. I have been in front of Lands Tribunal, Public Local Inquiry and Planning Appeal, examined or cross-examined in each case by Counsel. Not very relaxing. Slavering lawyers as I have said before are nothing by comparison. I confess to playing with the semantics of 'comply' and follow through', it's the same thing as when tree surgeons state that all the work they do complies with BS3998 when it very very clearly doesn't.. 'Compliant' isn't as honest as 'in accordance with', but as TS says it's the following through that counts and as everyone says it is about having a reasonable interpretation of the BS, stating it and then applying it. No slavering lawyer and few Councel will be able, willing or required to question professional arboricultural judgement and will concentrate instead on reasonability of approach and credibility. Drawing the occasional square circle in the boat isn't material if it isn't necessary, but trying will just make one look like a fool.

Me too in Glasgow, battrered by hailstones and by 7pm the house was cold, with a gusty wind outside. Got through a basket of Ash logs, two fingers to the gasman.

Just to clarify that last sentence, an example of proposed use might be 'high density flatted residential development' or '2,000m2 single storey healthcare facility'.

Tha's a very thorough reply, can't really argue with any of it and I am encouraged to hear that at least some LPAs take it seriously and work through it to get a fair and reasonable outcome. In anticipation that there might be not be much more discussion on this thread, I would summarise by saying that the BS categories don't present a problem, it is what is done with them in the absence of a full understandings of their limitations that could cause problems. And back to teh original post, I would treat the word 'merit' in the same way as I would treat 'quality' i.e. as a floating term that could depict life expectancy OR amenity contribution, and I would now certainly consider the merit in the context of teh proposed use of the site but not the proposed design.

Yeah, been there too... the slavering ones are easy to deal with, just don't get flustered or respond to the aggression. It's the slow measured questioning of Counsel that makes you doubt yourself. Anyway, to tidy up a loose end in my mind, I see that the Categories (A, B etc.) are set up in such a way that I can resolve my asssessment dilemma. The 5837 Categories relate only to two things (i) life expectancy and (ii) quality. The latter is ambiguous. The former is in bands of 'at least [X] years'. So if a tree has say landscape qualities that would put it in the B catergory and make it a B2 (Mid Blue) but has a life expectancy of 40+ years that deserves the A category (Light Green), it can still genuinely be put in the B category because it also (de facto) has a life expectancy of 20+ years. This interpretation taken to its full conclusion is that the tree should be Categorised according to the lower of its life expectancy Category and its Arb/Landscape/Conservation Criterion, all per Table 1. This seems consistent with the thrust of 5837, so we are not bending designs around attractive trees of low life expectancy or hideous ones that will live forever. And whatever 'quality means', if it means health it can be reflected in the life expectancy part of the Category definition and if it means good form it can be reflected in the Criterion definition. That's helped me anyway, sorry if it has confused anyone, if so I can try to explain. I have to tidy it up anyway to add as an explanatory note to my next 5837 report.

Ah but the choices are not equal, one interpretation makes more sense than the other, at least I am suggesting that it does. For the meantime it would seem inappropriate for anyone to wholeheartedly claim to have produced a 5837 compliant report. The claim of having followed 5837 would be bearable, since 5837 describes a process as much as it describes an end product. I can live with the discrepancy and can make sure a client understands what interpretation I have chosen. The difficulty remains that there are trees that cannot be assessed as fitting into one of the codes (A1, B2 etc.). In such cases a caveat that A does not really equal A and 2 does not really mean 2 and Mid Blue really means Light Green is harder to pass off as pragmatism. Or am I making a Buridan's ass of myself?