daltontrees

The lozzatrees rule of thumb as used by us is for repollarding lapsed pollards. The Lollipop Lime annual scalp seems to me so unnatural as to need no rationalisation in terms of tree physiology.

There are many trees in the background to be enjoyed and hugged, this poor specimen one look unbearably close to a building, you would be doing it and the occupiers a kindness by getting it removed before it becomes a bigger problem.

Since Lord Kelvin's name has been evoked, let me indulge myself with a cheesy link that a Radio 2 DJ would be proud of. I am currently surveying all the larger trees on the north side of the Kelvin for the local authority. You may (if you know the area) think 'NO! Surely not? That's a ridiculously onerous and enormous task.' We ll it is enormous and it is onerous but it will hopefully turn out by the end of March to have been possible. Not only am I to carry out a VTA of the trees but I have to assess the risk relative to the 1: 10,000 and 1:1,000,000 thresholds and in the band between I must specify and prioritise the treeworks necessary to achieve the ALARP criteria. I don't use any black box system. I am there on survey for several weeks, and being from the area generally I am aware of the way that the area is used habitually and occasionally by residents and visitors. The other day I found myself faced with a medium sized tree with high probability of failure (it definitely won't be there in 5 years) and will kill someone outright if they are unfortunate enough to be underneath when it fails. The usage of the path is low but I know that in summer there will be people passing and lingering frequently. A quick calculation, with chalk on the pavement, suggests that if there is someone beneath the tree for only 1 minute a year the risk is unacceptable at 1:1,000,000 and on the ALARP principle with my estimation of the average at-risk time throughout the year, the risk cannot be rendered acceptable except by felling the tree within 3 months. In the very woods that Lord Kelvin would have seen from his window, and before reading this thread, I felt in my mind the release of tension that comes with the satisfactory exercise of professional judgement. Admittedly there is rarely such clear calculation, rarely a convenient pavement to thrash out the calculations on, and it can take a couple of weeks in a park observing dog-walking, jogging, illicit drinking, littering, informal social gatherering and the use of short-cuts to extrapolate usage across a whole year, but in the end I have fould that a satisfactory defensible quantification can be arrived at without anything more than observation, judgement and chalk. I have not used the QTRA system, although I hope to someday. I would contend nevertheless that is it possible to quantify risk and to exercise professlional judgements as risk aware rather than risk averse (my client demand nothing more or less than that) without buying in to a formal system. Others may, and probably do, differ from this and would welcome a rigorous systematic analysis of risks. Much like an England Ireland rugby match, we all imagine and hope for a great sporting affray of blood, guts, derring-do and end-to-end stuff but so often a result is just ground out on penalties. OK, that's a bit of a dodgy analogy and another Radio 2 stylee link, but I shall leave this oblique answer to my own question at that and will look in on this thread when next I get the chance as I have found it quite illuminating so far.

Hello I have just come across this thread, catching up on it has been hard work. I advocated quantification of tree risk in the original RobArb thread but I suspect I failed to persuade. By happy coincidence the Ireland England game has created a lull at the juncture where my only principal quaestion in the whole matter can be inserted just when it is about to be discussed. Any system that you have to pay for but is a 'black box' i.e. input plus some mysterious process equals output is liable to be viewed cyncially when a more open and free system is available. Hopefully it will be clear from the other thread that I am obsessively in favour of attempting to quantify risk. The question; appreciating that you may have a slightly vested interest in arguing one way rather than the other, nevertheless can you say whether a satisfactory risk assessment can be achieved in general circumstances without the use of the paid-for QTRA model? Your persuasive reasoning thus far seems to suggest that it can by the average competent assessor.

We work to the Lozzatrees rule but with a 3 to 4 multiplier for limes rather than 5.

Ahh, one needs to be so careful what one says on the Forum. I should have said 'commonest' on Yew. The stage of completeness of the database is not known but perhaps there are more records not yet added to it. Anyway, it is a useful indicator of some sort of the geographical spread. 32 is a good start. In that context, I withdraw 'common' and replace it with the wishy-washy 'not unheard of'.

I recall BS3998 has guidance on whether to leave, and how big.

Nothing to add except as you will have gathered there are competing opinions on teh benefits and drawbacks of various species including brambles and (since you are co-owners) I would strolngly recommend that you draft a management plan setting out objectives (say wildness and nature vs access and play, trees vs wood production etc.) and circulate it to co-proprietors for comments, working towards a consensus or majority that everyone can sign up to. There is plenty of advice on the web about simple woodland management plans. If you can get sign-off on a managemnet plan then you can produce a simple initial and then annual plan of action. Who knows, you may get co-proprietors to agree to an annual action day when you all get stuck in and do the bulk of clearance with many hands. Finally, if you can get yourselves set up as a constituted body in a simple form, you may well be eligible for one or more of the small woodland estabilshment/management grants. Buy-in (not with money, just in spirit) from the Planning Authority may help too, remember TPOs don't mean no tree work they just mean the amenity should be preserved (or enhanced) by what is proposed and the Planning Authority would surely be willing to endorse selective removals, thinning etc. in teh context of a long term plan and appropriate planting complementary to encouragement of habitat and biodiversity. You are perhaps in an enviable position, I think most people on this forum would love to have a small woodland to shape and manage.

Capnobotrys seems to be common on Yew, see British Fungi - record details The synonym antennaria pinophyla is throwing me, may be getting confused with the black sooty mould Antennatula pinophyla

I was going to say you're lucky to be alive after that but I should say you're smart to be alive 'cos if you hadn't bothered putting the helmet on...

Interesting thread. I am still curious about whyt advantage there is tot eh tree (or indeed to the individual stem of these corky wings. The suggestion of protection against animals seems sound, Field Maples have very sugary sap and the closely related Sycamore is often ravaged by squirrels taking the thin bark off entirely on younger stems. If the cork is not just thick but is unpleasant tasting for squirrels that would be a very good defence. The other odd characteristic of Field Maples is that they can feel warmish tot eh touch on a cold day. Even in winter, it seems there is a lot of metaboilic activity. Do they keep the heating on, as it were, all winter to avoid frost damage? And if so the insulating characteristics of cork could be very useful. On the other hand, the additional surface area, for little change in cross sectrional area, surely has the net effect of cooling fins in reducing stem temperature. And the crevices on the stem must be a haven for overwintering insects, not a good thing for any tree. Whatever advantage to the plant, it must outweigh the disadvantages or did so when and wherever the species evolved. Anybody come up with a reliable reason for the corking?

I have seen it on a few young A. campestre around Glasgow, but it is not always present. Don't know what it's for though.

Good outcome. I think that when you said 'permitted development' you meant 'consented development'. Permitted development is a general term for woks that don't need permission, usually because they are trivial or small scale. And for the truly hardcore worriers, permitted development rights can be withdrawn by a LPA in conservation areas.

I think you have all given up, so for the record the second one is Toona Sinensis.

I should have added, TPO consent is not required for tree works that are part of the implementation of a planning consent. For completeness, and once the dust has settled, I would suggest that the Council revokes any TPO that might be affecting the developed land, otherwise it will turn up time and time again in land registry searches, needing an explanation every time. And I suppose we are all conditioned to think that a TPO means no tree work ever, but it really just means permission is needed first and the Guidance is clear (if not the legislation, but I can't track the relevant section down just now) that detailed consent, with or without reserved matters relating to trees, overrides a TPO.

Interesting questions... I would suggest the following. 1. Only substantial tree works on trees that are part of the consent either explicitly or implicitly could be considered commencement of development i.e. if there are other non protected (neither by TPO nor planning conditions) trees on the application site (as delineated in the application) which are unaffected by the development, the removal of these would not be implementation of the consent. 2. This is what I would suggest is implicit consent to remove the TPOd trees, but there is a remote danger that the LPA could claim retrospectively that it thought the trees were to be retained within the car park. If you are satisfied that the application and the associated drawings openly indicvate that the trees will not be present on completion of the development as consented, and if there are no conditions relating to the trees then their removal should be immune from prosecution. 3. Ahhhh! Scrap the aforegoing, I wouold suggest a precautionary approach that starts with checking with the LPA that it is aware of the trees, their TPOd status and the implicit removal of them to implement the consent. 4. The LPA cannot withdraw the issued consent unless by making a Revocation Order (which they never do and which could give rise to expensive compensation liabilities for them). I would think the LPA could waive reserved matters, effectively simplifying and altering the consent b ut it couldn't add conditions. If you have an advantageous consent that allows the argument that removal of TPOd trees is implicit, I would hold the LPA to it. 5. If it is a garden, no felling license is required. Also if the development is consented and the felling of trees is immediately required to implement a planning consent. On both counts (opnly one is needed) you seem to eb in the clear.

We don't know if the original creator of the thread is still looking in, so it might be academic anyway. But for what it's worth the tree is a leaner towards a bungalow and when it fails it will break the house in two and could hurt anyone inside. The concrete fell out because it doesn't fit the hole any more and/or because the stem was flexing more than usual. Scalping the tree is bound to give the decay the upper hand in the ongoing battle. If the house gets dented the building insurer's going to ask questions about why nothing was done (or no professional advice was commissioned) about such a glaring defect. I liked the replanting nearby and scalping meantime idea. Anything else is russian roulette.

Give it a sniff, if it is a bit vile it's Polar, if it's sweet it's Ash.

Alliaria, I should have clarified your Sapindus guess is not right and also doesn't have an oriental location reference in either the common or the scientific name.

thieving gets at my bank have just written to say they are putting the service charge on our business account up by 40%. What other form of business in this economic climate could do this? I wish I could.

OK the first one is actually according to the label in the Botanics the Japanese Cork Tree which I recall was given P. lavallei. From one dried leaflet probably indistinguishable from P. japonicum or amurense. Right, that's one oriental place reference used up.

Meant to say, neither guess is right but you are close on one of them.

The rule is that they can't both have the same oriental reference in the name.

Who ever said it was the scientific names that contained oriental references? And if you need a hint, the oriental references are to places. May or may not include China, but they're both different references. Sorry about teh Pot Purri ident test, it is a long cold dark winter and this is merely for amusement in the absence of any more reliable photos. Unless you want to get into winter twig idents, I am out on survey 3 days a week and can bring back loads? I just won't be able to guarantee what they are.

I too thought it was in the context of a planning application, not a CA notice. Therein lies a dilemma for the LPA, it can put conditions in a Planning Consent to protect trees during and after development but can it actually genuinely and validly refuse an application for development because of the tree loss, for an otherwise acceptable proposal? Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as it were? I suppose it can. But the example you quote would have had me hopping mad, as you rightly say the trees could not be removed until a CA notice was served and that would be the right time for a TPO to be made. Here's a real live situation I was loosely involved in a while ago. A disused church was bought by a developer for conversion to flats, requiring vehicular access and a lot of parking which had never been contemplated 150 years ago when a simple coach and horse driveway was provided to the church door behind a line of what became mature trees. The development was not physically possible and could not get the required amount of parking and satisfactory sight lines etc with the trees in place. There was no CA Appraisal to refer to. The LA wanted the building to be saved by allowing a beneficial use but would not allow the developer to remove the trees, forcing him instead into a ransom situation with a landowner at the rear for essential access rights. Pre-application plans were submitted which the Council was minded to refuse, and an application for the rear access option and the principle of conversion of the building to residential was submitted and approved, without any specific conditions being imposed in relation to the retention of the trees. The developer then, feigning ignorance or crossed wires, chopped the trees down. In the subsequent debacle the developer claimed that it shouldn't be fined because the Council couldn't have refused the application for an acceptable use merely because the loss of trees was unacceptable, and that the Council should have made a TPO which the developer could have overturned. Right or wrong? Who knows, the trees were by then gone.