daltontrees

R. ulmarius is not actively pathogenic and tends to colonise exposed heartwood in wounded mature or maturing trees, so the chances of it affecting a young replacement are as good as zero. Also I have never seen or heard of it on hornbeam or birch. I'd say crack on with a replacement, just don't use horse chestnut, elm, maple (inc sycamore) or poplar.

Ah but what I don't know about tertiary igneous petrology is not worth knowing. Then for the final I have the music of Boney M.😀

Ye shte person who advised you knows just enough to make it sound like he knows what he's talking about but not enough to actually know. It is now widely held, and for good reason, that staged reduction to avoid heave will not reduce the efffects of heave. If anything, doing it in one go and then immediately planting replacements (but in a more sustainable psition) will do more to reduce heave than a staged removal. And then there's the bloody obvious. Are you even in an area of shrinkable clay AND are your foundations designed or built to below the modern NHBC standard. Unless the answer to both of these is YES, then heave is not an issue.

Rack your brain no more. It is taxonomically impossible for a conifer to be an angiosperm and vice versa. Yew is not an angiosperm. The seed is naked (gymnosperm) but is surrounded on most sides by a fleshy aril which, like the fruit of angiospecms, has presumably ervolved to make it attractive to feeding animals that will help spread the seeds. but that's co-evolution, not taxonomic proximity.

Weep holes will still allow that water on the inside of the outer leaf to drain but also aid ventilation. Maybe it's just me, but htat's what I'll be doing for peace of mind. Also I leave out every third brick until the end to allow a regular clear-out. OTT I know, but... There are so many well thought-out products in the construction indistry that just don't work because of lazy or ignorant workies or corners being cut to save money.

I've only seen this in Scotland on Spruce so far. But once spotted it'sa hard not to see the next time. Wouldn't it have to be quite severe to girdle a tree? The ones I saw were from a new infection so I haven't seen the radial extent of tunneling under the bark. The exit holes are farily distinctive and the bleeding is a curious purple/lilac colour, almost invariably accompanied by resin runs.

Gimlet seems to ahve covered it pretty well. I utterly hate seeing no weep holes above catnic lintels. I'd bet that in an attempt to point their way out of trouble a previous owner has filled in the weep holes or perpends that were left there to let moisture running down the inside face of the outer leaf of brickwork (which is normal) dry out. I'd drill and rake them out because it bugs me that much. We had this issue in my first house when I was young, I remember water running down the inside of the dining room wall because some bawbag builder had forgotten to put weepholes in and cavity wall insulation had made it much much worse.

In Scotland that would be an actionable nuisance if it was done to spite a neighbour. No need to be vindictive about these things, or the law will no longer be on your side.

The legislation says a hedge is a barrier to light that comprises mainly evergreen trees and shrubs. So, it can include other things that are not trees or shrubs and if these are contributing to it being a barrier to light they could be removed. I would include ivy and bamboo amongst these. The extreme example you are putting forward of a line of bamboo does not fall within the legislation and therefore cannot be the subject of a high hedge notice.

No, it's a grass, not a tree or shrub. That said, a strict reading of the legislation suggests that a hedge mainly of evergreens could have bamboo within it and if the bamboo is contributing to it being a barrier to light then the reduction of the bamboo along with the rest of the hedge could arguably be part of a Notice.

A client's neighbour chopped his hedge when he was on holiday, and while there was a High Hedge application in to the Council. Got 150 hours community service and a criminal record, the sheriff said he was lucky not to be in jail. Criminal damages of about £5,600 paid.

The lowest that can be specified in a high hedge notice is 2 metres. The legislation is the Antisocial Behaviour Act. And yes this would eb criminal damage. The only worry would be that if the neighbour says he was going to cut the hedge and the owner has no record of saying that wasn't OK, hte neighbour could argue in court that he had agreement. So yes, get the disagreement on the record in writing and give somebody trustworthy and neutral a dated copy. Or send onesself a sealed tracked postage copy and don't open it when it arrives.

That's good to know, I have been feeling a bit guilty about using the occasional google aerial pic.

Form looks like Carpinus betulus 'Fastigiata' but the twigs and buds are too big, they look like Sorbus intermedia.

Here's the thing. Clay 'soils' are not the sort of dirt that plants are normally grown in. They are closer to rock substrate than the porous plant-friendly stuff that has 'field capacity' for seasonal water. Dry clay is pretty much waterproof unless subject to long slow soaks. The change in its volume that causes heave or subsidence takes a long time (months or years) and takes persistent soil moisture defecits or near-permanent soil misture increases (such as can happen when thirsty trees have been removed). Basically, it takes more than summer to winter weather changes to casue subsidence or heave.

I get where you are coming from, although I would be reluctant to create a new quantified system rather than applying ADB to existing risk assessment systems. What you are suggesting is interesting as it included elements of severity of harm/damage, likelihood of failure, target value and cost of risk reduction. As such, it touches on proportionality and prioritisation, which are not addressed properly by any current risk assessment system. Ideally a ADB risk response should tie in with legal duty of care. Using QTRA or TRAQ would be better I think than using a new ranking system that has no values relatable to duty of care, cost of intervention or return on risk redcution. Having had a go at this in theory and in practice, the answer I believe is not just in assessing the trees as they are but in forecasting rate of change and survivability. In other words, forget the current risk, what will the risk be in 6 months, or 1 year or 2 years? ADB changes probability of failure too quickly for the current probability to be the defining parameter

It's worth thinking about, though, as a lot of ADB surveys and recommendations are not based on any systematic approach. VALID has really just taken QTRA and the HSE's hierarchy of risk to get its accceptable/tolerable/unacceptable categories. A professional assessment is only possible if these terms and their legal implications are understood by the assessor.

The overall law is quite simple. If you are not the customer, BT needs a wayleave to use your land. A wayleave is an anual agreement that allows access to install and maintain equipment. There is usually an annual or commuted payment for this. If you refuse to sign a wayleave then BT can get a court order allowing it to use your land anyway. If you disagree with the proposed arragements of poles and wires etc. don't speak to the contractor, put it on written notice to whoever sent you the wayleave. If you don't do this, and if there are only unrecorded verbal disagreements, BT could apply for a court order and you will lose any say in the matter. You don't need fancy lawyers or anything, just write that you do not agree to the proposal and would like reassurances about precise positions or, better still, propose an alternative that won't inconvenience you so much. Felling poles is for vandals, maniacs and idiots. I can only imagine and hope the suggestions of this you have had are not serious. You would probably go immediately from smug self-righteousness to defendant in a prosecution, wayleave or no wayleave. I had your situation a few years ago, a pole was proposed in (my) road verge right in front of my house where I propsed to build a crossover and driveway. I suggested an alternative position 5 metres to the side and that's what happened. Made absolutely no difference to BT. When the guy came to remove the old disused pole, he got out a chainsaw with the chain swinging an inch off the bottom of the bar, and set about felling the pole with alarming lack of PPE, or any real expectation of where it was going to land up. On the road was most likely. I popped out, tightened and sharpened his cahin and in the end I felled the pole safely as he manned a pull-rope. Happy outcome. There's some burning in those old poles, plus I got to use the upper undecayed part for a fencepost.

A couple of thigs to add here. In Scotland the nuisance exemption has been removed, inexplicably. Do not rely on it. There never has been a windthrow (windblow) exemption, it was just never enforced. In Scotland the whole rationale for Licenses and for protecting trees has been rewritten in to the 2018 Act, and it's not got a lot to do with strategic timber reserves any more. In England the rationale has drifted, without statutory authority, towards sustainability and habitat considerations (and in one case it was reported that prosecution was based on loss of amenity) and one day the legislation might catch up with that. Windthrow is enforced in Scotland almost certainly to ensure restocking obligations.

Endless argument to be had, a lot of tree case law is about this very subject. The standard for noticing, discovering and understanding the significance of tree defects expected of householders is not very high, but the law expects you to act on anything you (or a hypothetical average person) would be expected to notice or discover. If ther neighbour brings it to your attention and you do nothing, there's trouble ahead. Big complicated subject, but only a few basic principles.

I am reminded that you are unable to hold a discussion without resorting to antagonism. I am not a braveheart chest beater, you don't know me, and I have no intention of wasting another moment of my time on you. I will stick to discussing tree issues. Try it some time.

Betting's for mugs. And how do we predict when there would be a votre for independence? It's a massive Catch 22, Westminster olnly allows a vote when it thinks or knows it will win. We should set the date for a vote is say 4 years' time. no going back on it. Personaly I'd have one on every general election day. How utterly ridiculous that Scotland has to ask? And that England can refuse to let us choose? I was borderline for independence but the utter sham of Brexit pushed me over.

Come now, play fair. If you get to vote Scotland out we get to vote you out. Then we cna all decide tyo get back in minus the repulsive middle England and London monopoly of democracy. Would you vote for Scotland to be set free (or is it adrift) because you feel our pain or because we are such a financial basket case tha twe are dragging you down?

Have you not figured it out? Get independence then get shot of the SNP. The very next day. People who don't vote for independence because they don't like the SNP or Sturgeon are short-sighted beyond belief.

Bring it on. I've been advocating it for years. Engand threw us out of the EU against our will, we always get what England wants anyway. Hay, votew for us to leave England and I'll vote for Cornwall to leave England too. Then we can all renegotiate trading terms with each other. We'll sell water and electricity. You can send some granite and scrumpy. It'll be fun and it'll be fair.