daltontrees

Most interesting debate... Personally I still hold that the notice would be invalid. Saying ALL the trees in the CA may be unambiguous, but the courts (and before it gets that far, the LA), would almost certainly decide tha the purpose of the wording in the Act viz. 'sufficient particulars to identify thet tree' is not so much to make it possible for the LA to locate the tree but for it to direct the LA to the specific tree (and if necessary use powers in the Act to gain access to land to inspect the tree and consider the implications of the Notice). THE tree! Courts always have and use the fallbacks of considering a combination of reasonability and what the intentions of Parliament were. If I was on the team trying to destroy Mr A's defence I would ask the court to consider whether, given the underlying motives of CAs to protect the amenity of the area in a broad public interest were served better by Parliament having intended the legislation to mean that the notice was valid than by to mean that it was a 'device' and was therefore not. There really can only be one outcome of that 'okkams razor'. Random thoughts that came to me while typing that were (i) if the trees that are above 75mm are not specifically identified, the LA would have to serve notices to gain statutory access to ALL the land to measure all the trees; that would in itself be a big issue of some kind. (ii) The Council's case for a temporary TPO would be greatly improved if it was contemplating the change in amenity that the loss of all trees in the CA would cause. The Council can quite legitimately let the occasional CA NOtice for individual trees lapse because it knows the overall amenity of the CA will not be materially affected.

The courts would not have to questions the motives behind As notice, it is either a valid notice or it is not. For the reason I gave it is definitelty not valid. Proceeding to fell any big trees would then be an offence.

Zelkofagus sebliqua?

It is evidently a Nothofagus serrata x Zelkova obliqua cross! If it weren't for that bark I would be going with N. obliqua. Does that scientific website mention any Nothofagus in the area?

Sorry, sorry, that should have said the notice would NOT BE VALID.

Thanks the legislation is almost identical both sides of the border. But I think the key words in there that scupper Mr A's plan is '(with sufficient particulars to identify the tree". In other words the Notice would be valid and the Plaanning Authority need only to communicate that to Mr A. And await no doubt his hypothetical follow-up notice that identifies all the trees in the CA? As a discrete number of trees the LA might find such a notice (setting aside for now the question of assignability) an easier set of targets to hit. I think they could then legitimately move to make a temporary TPO. 'Tis a shame for LAs that a valid CA notice has a longer life than a temporary TPO, and the matter would have to be adressed eventually but in 6 months rather than 6 weeks.

The matter of assignability of notice is one question here, but if you look at it from another perspective that avoids the issues of assignability and put the question as follows, would the answer be any different? What if every person (let's say undeniably the owner occupiers) who has trees within a particular (hypothetyical) Conservation Area simultaneously gave the Council valid notices of their intention to have their trees removed?

Ahhh, but what I was suggesting is that it IS the letter of the law that CA notices are not retrospectively assignable. Fell based on a notice by someone other than yourself or your agent and it may well be an offence. I think that examination after the offence that found that the 'agency' was constituted after the notice was served would destroy your defence. Please don't press me on the English legislation though, it was very begrudgingly that I learnt it all for the AATech law exams knowing that it would firstly be no use to me in Scotland and secondly it would make it harder to remember the Scottish rules which I use weekly.

I cna't show you it because the Act (well, I suppose I mean that Scottish equivalent of the Act) doesn't say that. What I meant was it is an offence to fell tree in a TPO area, the CA rules say the offence and the penalty is the same as for TPOs, the CA rule says a person is exempt from prosecution only if 'he' served notice beforehand. So, unless he or his agent served the notice, if he then allows the tree to be felled by someone other than his agent, surely he has committed an offence? Anyway it was just a thought in the hypothetical scenario. And English legislation differs from ours.

LA could write to every affected owner stating that unless the author of the s211 notice was their authorised agent it would be an offence to allow (retrospectively) the trees to be cut down? In effect wouldn't every owner except the author then resist any trees being cut down for fear of penalties.

Oh dear! I had decided against Zelkova becvause teir leavesa re generally hard and the lobes are distinctly pointed. I had been leaning towards Nothofagus, but as RobArb says the bark isn't right. I was with teh family that day and couldn't linger. I asked the Ranger what it was but he didn't know or much care. There were no information boards about it. There are 3 in a cluster beside the toilet block if anyone wants to look at them ever. I have only this one more picture which I am posting in case it helps. If we can't pin it down I may contact the people who run the place. If they mention Z.s being present then maybe it is, even thought he leaves didn't look right to me.

"A" Zelkova?

I would just say again that I don't know what it is. If no-one omes up with anything else I will say what I think it is then brace myself to be ridiculed.

Don't think it is either of those two. Same Order, but that's all.

Maybe Stereum rugosum? Could be almost anything.

Agree with Treesnatcher, no need to sneak about, just ask if it is OK to check with the Council. If he won't let you I would be concerned about his motives but would still do as instructed with a note of where and when I suggested he checked for TPOs.

This one's in Tentsmuir Forest in Fife, pictured last September. I think I know what it is but never formally ID'd it.

Extra advice, if the felling is to go ahead bring your sharpest chain, and a spare one. Yew of any decent age is hard hard stuff. Valuable too...

Described as 'Lot de Sauvetage' I think that means rescue kit. Looks nice and organised and compact if you had to carry all your (dry) climbing kit a fair distance for a one-off job but it doesn't look like it would last a typical week's work.

Superb! I nearly wet myself.

Haven't found a really good fungi book yet. The one that really explains it all though is Fungal Decay Strategies... I can't remember full title. Will check for you. But it's pretty heavy duty, Mattheck does a lightweight version of it. I used to try and learn what each fungus looked like and what it did, then I read aforementioned books and realised it is more powerful to understand the ways that trees are infected and weakened and killed by fungi in general, then learn (backed up by observations) how the main fungal species fit in to those 'strategies'. Each to their own though. I like to build from the bottom, and I love threads like this because it is an opportunity to research, top up, share knowledge and to benefit mtually from someone else's observations. One doesn't come across hardcore Xylaria polymorpha every day...

Clinet may be a nice guy, hence my comment about insusrers being the b***ards. Don't pm the photos, it's all about sharing experience, knowledge and opinions, stick 'em on here.

I'd agree witht he gist of advice so far, no foreseeability no liability. But it's still your tree whether on the ground or up in nthe air, you should dispose of it or if the neighbours do they should offer it to you before keeping it or chucking it. Not all insurers will pay for fallen tree disposal on policy holders land, only for damage caused by it. Equally there is no rule for whether a policy covers damage or removal on neighbouring land. Check the policy small print! Insurers are quick to take premia and slow to pay out on claims. They're very good at it. Trees in law are different from anything else. They might be a bit like cars, handbrakes etc but they are treated differently to mechanical and other manmade things due to their characteristics.

Fair enough, it has hte benefits of spliced eyes and the economy of DIY loops. I have a new stock of the latter but will give the fisherman's a go when next I get some cord in.

I have had a look at Strouts, Mattheck, Phillips etc. notnhing is said about the mode of decay or the pathogenic vigour of X.p. I looked at 'Diseases of Trees and Shrubs' Sinclair et al, an american book which is incredibly thorough. They say that' X. polymorpha is a proven pathogen only of apple. They go on to list species on which they can be found on the butt, including A. saccharinum but not A. pseudoplatanus. Evidence is restricted to USA and Canada. The mode of attack is given in great detail, I can send it if required but it does not say what kind of decay (white, brown, soft) is caused except what is described as an off-white decay of wood beneath a black sheath. I would be suggesting to the client that although there is no widely published evidence of pathogenesis from X. polymorpha on A. pseudoplatanus, its presence suggests that wood has been killed or made vulnerable by other pathogens and that its near-surface activity can only be complementing the internal weakening of wood by other pathogens and interfering with vascular flows to accelerate the demise. I would then add that I am not being paid to give a definitive professional view so don't sue me if the tree blows over but you may wish to keep a close eye on it to assess vigour and vitaility (lots of silhouette photos this winter to compare with some next winter). Or pay to get someone else to blame if it goes wrong or to do intrusive investigation. Or reduce knowing that this will accelerate the demise of the whole tree. Or cut losses and fell and replant. So, having leafed through my library I would say there is not much said definitively about X. p that helps you. Unless anyone else knows something? You sound like the sort who wants to be helpful but again I would suggest the more helpful you are the more it will be construed as expertise that an owner might erroneously rely on. The building insurer, trying to duck out of a claim arising from a catastrophe, might come looking for someone like you to blame. It might count for little that you weren't paid for advice, it is an existing client which could only make the construction of an implied duty of care easier. Gloomy I know but I am just being careful. ASnd if the tree does get felled, any chance of some pics of the cut stump? Sinclair has ifo that might make the extent of the X. p damage identifiable. Again I can post that info if you want.