daltontrees

That growth is Cerioporus squamosus. Yes decay has set in. Early days and not a fast mover. Maybe a decade or so before structrual integrity is compromised. Worrying about tree decay is pointless, you can't stop it. Worrying about harm or damage to people or property is a different matter. You haven't given any context, so the risk can't be assessed.

Worried about what, exactly? And I mean 'exactly'.

I have a 130 year old disc of it somewhere, rock solid, no splits even after 5 years of drying. Almost unsandable too.

POssibly better in wet (live) wood. I've never done 60cm, longest is 40cm. But I have wrecked one going through 2 x 3" very hard old joists.

In my experience when they go downhill it's almost free-fall. Never known one to bounce back. It's like an almost complete shutdown of their vascular system.

Auger bit, obviously. A helical bit will just use up all your battery warming the wood around the hole. Experience of drilling railway sleepers says be careful against hitting tough wood like buried branch stubs, I nearly broke my wrist when the drill kept rotating but the bit stopped dead. Ideally you need the hole to be not much bigger than the bolt, so keeping the hole straight is crucial. Quite a big ask over 2 feet. Can be awkward up a tree with sometimes no way of pushing on the drill. Use a bit with a small threaded pilot tip they really drag the bit into the wood.

Currently getting by with QCAD ($40 perpetual). Some of the recommendations I got were not quite what I need. A lot of CAD packages are massive and complex, whereas I just need 2D site plans and dxf compatibility. The real issue seems to be that dxfs are not used much any more and the format hasn't been updated for years. But I am stuck with it because I use PT Mapper and Pocket GIS. The one problem remains, PT Mapper rejects or messes up some layers from dxfs that have originated as dwgs. Developers regulary throw drawings across that have shadings and hatching and bespoke symbols for cars, trees, whirlygigs, paviours etc. and these do not convert or if they do you end up with a dwg expanded form 4mb to a dxf at 40mb.

There's nothing new in this, it's PTI, not Professional Tree Risk Assessment. NTSG zooms out and sets the context of risk management. Tree inspectors are not decision makers or risk managers, they make recommendations. Daily, completely unqualified but occasionally experienced tree surgeons make quasi-risk recommendations to customers without any systematic basis, and within days whole trees are removed. If any change is needed to PTI it is to make it clear to candidates that it is not tree risk assessment. Where the industry takes it from there is a different matter. Like when you get recommendations and a price from a builder for your extension, the public seem happy with it this way. The furure about the proposed tree risk BS was some sort of evidence of that.

Bleeding canker (Pseudomonas syringae pv. aesculi) for sure. Pretty much irrecoverable and as Paul says ther will be honey fingus on the way to finish the job off. Looks like a bit of leaf miner on the go too.

If it's not brittle it's not Kretz

Basal flares suggest individual trees.

The boundary shoudn't fundamentally affect the Council's decision. It is the tree that is TPO'd not the land. It is it's importance to the amenity of the area that matters, regardless of where the boundary beneath it is. That said, if the tree is encroaching into a neighbouring property and is a 'legal 'nuisance' i.e. doing damage or preventing reasonable use of the encraoched land, it can be cut back without Council permission, but only enough to prevent or abate the nuisance. If it's a lesser situation than that, like ALL TPO appications the applicant HAS to give reasons for the work. You haven't said if he has done this or what the reasons are. But as others have said, if the neighbour has no right to the land over which it is suposedly encroaching he has no right ot cut it whether it has TPO consent or not.

The cost pays for the development and publication of Standards. I have used my 5837 Standard for about 800 paid reports. That's 25p a report. The only irritation is that the cost of a Standard is the same whether you use it once or a thousand times. I have the same gripe with AutoCAD. And Adobe. And OS mapping.

Don't hold your breath. There were about 2,500 submitted comments on the draft. Think more in terms of a new version next year or the year after, or possibly a 2nd draft next year.

I don't see a problem with the system, but I perceive ecologists as doing well out of the mystery of it all and generally taking an unduly precautionary position. It's hard to challenge because they just fall back on scaremongering about legislation, their professional duty, their insurer's requirements and the Bat Conservation Trust guidance (which is thorough but not pragmatic).

Depends on definitions but Stage 1 is identifying habitat and potential roost features. Stage 2 is investigating whether they are or have been used.

I am looking for a potential roost features survey on half a dozen trees to be updated. It's on Mull. I did a climbing inspection last time to get a closer look at a couple of features but this time it could possibly be done from the ground. If so, 10 minutes on site. Anyone in the area able to help soon? Doesn't need bat license or handling. Not looking for an ecologist to do 20 pages on it and camp out dawn and dusk. Just a pragmatic and proportionate rule-out.

You sell services and goods to customers, you sell advice to clients. Calling customers clients also just makes a contractor look like a bit of a twat

You have the right to see the Order. Council has the right to charge for a copy of it. Most Councils have made it nearly impossble to get to speak to someone. I worked for a Council years ago and you couldn't get any work done for people phoning up and keeping you on the phone for half an hour as they moan about everything they perceive to be wrong about western civilisation. In those days you were obliged to humour them. It was policy to answer the phone within 3 rings, even if it wasn't your phone. I hated it. So I agree with not being able to call someone. But what I now hate is that you have to email customer services and wait for an unknown period (days, weeks, never) for an answer. Meantime the tree is down and through the chipper and composted.

A bike. 8 metres up.

The Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation)(England) Regulations 2012, Regulation 8(c)

He said 'on my neighbour's side'. Responsibility goes with ownership. Yes the ownership situation should be clarified.

Neighbour's responsibility. Let him know your concerns and keep a record of the communication.

In my experience once Kd is well-established and visible there is very limited scope for only 'monitoring' it. It can but doesn't always progress rapidly, but full aeration takes it from a selective rot mode to full-on loss of strength. So, usually some sort of intervention is recommended. The life of the tree can be increased by crown reduction to avoid basal failure, but as with all reduction you're removing part of the tree's energy source to fight off further decay, accelerating the overall demise. A lean makes management decisions even more difficult, as leaners can in theory fail under the self-weight tension at the base. In practice failure will usually be triggered by a wind event. And there's always the issue that as things get worse the tree gets less climbable and more expensive to remove. 'Monitor' is such a useless recommendation for any risk survey. A specific season and year for reinspection should be specified, and take it from there. As precise a record of current condition and extent of decay and fuiiting is essential for future comparison. Risk is only partly about the tree. Target is as important, either by reference to defensible thresholds set by H&SE or in discussion with the landowner. Rarely I have seen trees with Kd in positions where intervention was not merited. I've spotted Kd on a few and recommended reisnpection after an appropriate period. I've also come a cross a few failures lying on the ground. But I don't have a body of records on what happens from discovery right through to failure.

Experience of the effect of unsympathetic groundworks? Almost daily, unfortunately. There's several issues here. What would be the adverse effects? If carport is just a roof on stilts, minor risk of a direct hit by a screwpile on a root. Deprivation of rainwater for a large section of roots. Proabbaly minor for a tree of that size. Ground water moves sideways to an extent. A solid concrete floor slab would make loss of rainwater much worse because of complete exclusion of water, compaction of soil, leaching of concrete and loss of gas exchange to roots. Firstly ignoring the TPO... If the neighbour is allowed to build a carport on his own land and it adversely affects the tree, it's your problem since your roots are encroaching on his land. Secondly if he builds it and the tree sheds a branch onto it, even if he knows it could happen, again it's your problem. You can't prevent him using his land lawfully as he sees fit just because your tree encroaches on his airspace. Both these could be countered weakly by arguments about reasonableness between neighbours, but in the end your tree has no right to be in his soil or airspace. No amount of time creates such a right. But with a TPO? If no planning permission is required, also no consent for tree works required. The test is therefore whether the works result in wilful damage or wilful destruction of the tree. If not, there is no statutory offence. It all comes down to what is meant by 'wilful'. Not 'careless' or 'reckless' or 'foreseeable'. Just 'wilful'. Does this mean premeditated, deliberate, intended? Grab your favourite dictionary, because the law will not answer this question for you. Personally as a native speaker of english I interpret it as requiring 'intent'. Others seem to want it to mean careless or 'should have taken advice first'. Again personally I feel the law should be changed to ' careless'. This would change the onus of proof in a way thats would reflect the spirit of TPOs. Whether at common law or TPO, I see a presumption in favour of the adjacent owner unless he is being deliberately difficult. He should do the least damaging thing, but proof of intent is mind-reading that even the courts rarely achieve.