daltontrees

A client? Are you only being paid to advise the client?

No-one has asked what species they are! That's what I'd want to know. For example if they're Lawsons Cypress then phytophthora's probably the cause.

I am in Scotland, different laws. Hopefully someone down there will advise. Itsa a very vague question though, I don't think I would even tackle it if I was down there.

No special care. Trees are at their best when people leave them alone. But the sycamores will get big, then bigger and eventually will outstay their welcome. Neither sycamore nor cherry are good hedge species, so don't bother trimming, maybe just prune back every 2 or 3 years.

not clear photos. Looks liek sycamore with cherry to right. No such thing as 'classified as a hedge', depends on purpose. High hedge legislation might say one thing, title deeds might say another.

I believe the only part of the palnt that isn't poisonous is the arils (berries).

Can it really determine diameter to 1mm precision and height to 0.1m?

I see it being used in topograpic surveys for development sites (DTMs). A colleague fantasises about it being able to mark the posiitons and measure the heights. crown spreads and stem diameters of all the trees on a site, but I'm not sure it's realistic or cost effective (yet). I got someone to use it in my previous job to create a 3D model of a town centre I was working on.

No. There is a limited time for challenging the Order in a court (name of court depends on what country you are in, eg England it's the High Court) purely on a point of law. So if you think the Order is unnecessary, don't challenge it. If you think the Order or procedures did not follow the rules, an expensive challenge is possible. But bear in mind, if the Council slipped up and a challenge succeeded, the Council can simply start again and do it right second time around. The system is stacked in favour of Councils bcause courts won't interfere in Council discretion about what is merited, and a legal challenge would be really very expensive, probably well into 5 figures if it went to hearing.

You may as well object then. It shouldn't take long, just put your concerns in plain language and add a plan to make it clear which bits you are referring to. You need to be clear that you 'object to the Order in its current form because it would prevent .....' and idelaly suggest what the modification shoudl be, either by excluding certain areas (or trees) from the Order or by allowing certain maintenance works to be done without consent. Make sure the objection goes to the right place, on time, adn tha tit is clear what Order you are objecting to. 1/2 hour should do it. Might not make a difference, but it will have to be considered. Once the objections are in, the Council has up to 6 months to confirm the Order, either as it is or modified. It has to go to a committee. So you can contact the relevant councillors and seek their support.

You could argue that. She could also (politely or impolitely) tell you to mind your own business. She lives there, she paid for the property, the public authorities haven't decided the tree is special enough for a TPO. Not every tree (or oak) is sacred. I understand the 'custodian' thing but most people in modern life want to be able to customise their living arrangements. In the end, the legal/illegal test trumps the moral/immoral one.

The bunion analogy doesn't hold up. But I think we are agreed that it is always an option to decline to do the work. But it's the customer's decision to ask.

You can object to a TPO. It's not known as an appeal. In your case you would have to be objecting on the basis tha ttrees are blocking your access. If the Council agreed it would have to modify the Order to exclude those trees or allow works to them. But in reality if they are blocking a lawful use of the lane, they aren't even protected because there is a statutory exemption for tree works to prevent or abate a nuisance. Even if the TPO stands, and assuming you have a legal right of use of the lane, you wouldn't even need to apply, you could just do the crown lifting. Even if it's not that clear-cut, you could apply and a refusal is unlikely. Objecting to the Order won't change any of that.

What's the problem? It's her tree. If you don't believe it should be reduced, buy the house off her. Someone will do the work, There is no right or wrong answer, it's a matter of professional reputation and personal standards about whether any individual is willing to do it. Repeat, it's her tree. Thousands of trees in the UK get reduced or removed unnecessarily every week. Much worse things happen. Social media experts treat private property as if it's public. Want to control, criticise or influence what gets done by private individuals to their private property that they inhabit, but don't want to compensate owners for having the choice taken away from them. It's generally a good idea not to try and look fancy by calling customers 'clients', but in this case it definitely isn't.

The legislation exempts the 'local planning authority', as shown in the guidance too. But what McClellan v Lambeth showed was that the exemption was not free rein by a Council to do whatever it wants under different departments and legislation. I suppose the way to see it is that the planning authority is exempt on the presumption that internally the authority has had the opportunity to consider the effect of the removal on the amenity and special cahracter of the conservation area. But in McClellan the decision to remove CA trees was made by Cabinet and not planning committee and there was no record of the planning department having been asked if it was OK. Therefore it was an abuse of the presumption. The court decided that if the planning authority had been asked there might have been (not necessarily would have been) a different decision. I think it's best to assume that the requirement to consult with the public is definitely not trumped by the CA exemption and that the highways authority should at least internally notify the planning authority (if it is the same Council) and must notify it externally (s.211) if it is not the same Council.

The authority wielding power under the planning acts, generally known as the Local Planning Authority, has the duty to enforce CA restrictions. I don't know how English local government works, in Scotland we have unitary authorities that do everything that counties, boroughs, parishes etc do down south. The obligation to consult on street trees applies to the 'local highway authority' whatever that is (England only). So, the planning authority may or may not be the same as the highway authority. If it isn't, I cannot see how there is any argument whatsoever that highway authorities are exempt from CA controls.

I have to disagree with Paul, street trees in CAs in England are protected. There might be a presumption that they are under good management, but that is not enough. As was found in McClellan v Lambeth 2014, the proposed removal of a tree owned by the Council in a CA was criticised because the Council had not considered its importance in a planning sense.

I can't stand Slater's use of the term 'snag'. He argues that monolith is not a good term (I agree, it literally means a single piece of stone) because the public don't understand it, but the public will misunderstand 'snag' as it has other more obvious meanings. He perpetuates this by calling the article 'snagging list' which in construction is a list of items on a build that haven't been done according to spec. A snag is also somethign you would catch yourself on as you pass, or a problem preventing a solution. In Scotland we have used the term 'stock' for centuries, it too suffers slightly from having other common meanings but not in the way that snag does. I tend to specify them as 'habitat poles' if that is the intended purpose, or more simply poles. I definitely prefer plain language like 'stem remnant'.

No such thing as a surveying period. Not for monoliths (oh what a rubbish term that is), not for any tree. IF it is checked and found to be safe at the time of inspection, the surveyor must decide what period of time will elapse before its condition could change such that it would no longer be an acceptable risk. The risk is a product of likelihood of failure, severity of harm and target probability at the time of failure. For 'monoliths' it follows that size (and therefore severity) won't change and if usage around it won't change over time then the only relevant variable of the risk calculation is probability of failure. It can help if you can conclude that the propability of failure is several orders of magnitude away from the risk becoming less than acceptable. If so, the time to next inspection can be longer. If not, that is to say the risk assessment shows the condition being such that a less than acceptable risk could come around with relatively little deterioration in strength, then the period should be shorter. And if it's really imminent and inevitable it would be prudent to recommend its removal now. I have a couple of clients who deliberately create stocks and keep them as habitat for insects, birds, bats , fungi etc. so prolonging the useful period as much as possible is important.

I'd start with Liquidambar styraciflua an take it from there.

Police were wrong about trespass. Trespass is a wrong against property rights. Putting your hand in someone's airspace does not deprive them of the use of their property and is therefore not trespass. Either a criminal or a civil case against it would get laughed out of court, if it even managed to get into court in the first place. Damage to encroaching trees is not criminal damage, it is a common law right going back centuries, as consolidated in the famous Lemmon v Webb case of late 1890s. But crossing the boundary to cut someone else's trees is wrong. Trespass wouldn't be the real issue. I expect your neighbour has other problems.

I have a young rowan in my front garden, it is growing really vigorously and I have been watching it and pruning it to create a wide rather than tall crown, and so far it is working. In late spring one of the rising side branches extended quite a lot and during a few days of heavy rain so it became bent under the weight of water and has now 'set' like that. Yours is likely to have that curved top all its life. Yours also looks to have a tuft of lower branches, nothing in the middle and not a lot on the top. The scope for pruning looks limited, don't want to lose too much foliage. If it were me I would shorten the leader right away, ideally back to an upward facing twig (1) and let it consolidate like that till next summer. This will encourage budding at midheight. Then next year identify the next best upward (2) and cut just past it. That's my direct experience, once rowan has extended and then converted new growth to wood it is set and won't just spring up after pruning or self-correct. Tree maybe could do with a liquid feed, right after pruning would be ideal. I'd leave the ties, it is more important to achieve vertical first, then lower the ties in a couple of years to encourage stem thickening.

Not strictly true, trespass needs to have a degree of persistence, repetition, harm or damage for it to be acitonable at law. The law does not concern itslef with trivialities, de minimis non curat lex. As good a time as any to roll out a clever limerick on the subject. There was a law student called Rex who had very small organs of sex when charged with exposure he said with composure 'De minimis non curat lex"

You don't apply, you 'notify'. And the 'consent', whether it has been expressly given or is because the Council did not stop you within 6 weeks, lasts for 2 years. But it's not like planning permission, which lasts forever once you start development. If you have consent to remove say 10 trees and you only remove 5, the consent for the other 5 expires after 2 years.

Sort of depends were you are, the law in Scotland is pretty clear but in England it appears to be messy. There definitely isn't a set trigger (or even a statutory obligation) to 'review' a TPO (in England) but what it comes down to is that a TPO can be revoked or varied if appropriate. The power to do this is in the 1990 Act (s.337(7)) and the procedure is in Regs 8 and 9 , 1999. The Council doesn't need any special trigger to 'review'. It simply can. The legislation doesn't say 'review, but that is essentially what happens - a review to see if and to what extent the TPO is still relevant. If it needs changed it can be revoked or varied. Or a new one made. Note the terms review, revoke, vary, make and confirm all have specific meanings.