daltontrees

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.

Basket case my ****************ing arse! It would be hard at first, but Scotland would have to become a different entity, not a mini-England. I think it would do quite well as it has several niches it could carve out. The UK is a basket case already, it just borrows and borrows and has built its entire financial markets around the permanence of government borrowing. Call me biased, but I am sick to my guts of old Etonian arrogant pricks trying to make us feel grateful to get a share of what is already ours. As I always say, I'd rather we made an arse of it ourselves than had an arse made of it for us by unaccountable wankers that we haven't chosen and never can oust even when the whole of Scotland votes against the UK majority. It might even cure scots of their unhealthy reliance on blaming England for all its woes. In fairness, England's only to blame for some of them. Some of them are universal woes, and we are resilient enough to manage them as competently as Bojo and his bumbling cohorts. With or withour EU. With or without russian gas. With or prefereably without nukes. Now there's a book-balancer in one stroke of the pen.

It's called a 'Felling Permission' and it is not that different to a 'Felling License' in England and Wales. The rules are bit more strict though, and windthrow didn't used to need a License, but this was because of lax application of the law rather than the law itself. Trees in gardens and public open spaces are always exempt. The idiots at the Scottish Parliament removed the 'nuisance' exemption, which still applies in E&W. So a tree lying into a garden may be exempt as a 'nuisance'.

This question always comes up and it continues to be surprising how ill-defined the answer is. Attempts to answer it always drift off into pragmatic advice, matters of insurance and of responsibility for harm or damage, and horror stories about spiralling legal costs. I believe the answer is clear and simple as long as these distractions are ignored, or at least answered as special cases to the general rule. If your tree falls into a neighbour's garden, it's still yours so get it removed. IF THERE WAS ALSO DAMAGE OR HARM TO NEIGHBOUR If it caused damage or harm that could not have been reasonably foreseen, the tree owner is not responsible for compensation. If harm or damage was reasonably foreseeable, the tree owner may be held negligent and compensation would be payable. IF THERE ARE ALSO INSURERS INVOLVED If there are insurances in place, the insurers may step in and deal with negligence claims. It doesn't change the rights or responsibilites of the parties. Purely depending on what the policy or policies say, insurance may or may not pay out for unforeseeable damage. This is not a rule of law, it depends on the policy. It doesn't change the rights or responsibilites of the parties. Policies differ as to liability for damage to 3rd party property, whether by negligence or bad luck. They also differ as to cover for damage to boundary structures, which oddly are often excluded from insurance on cheap policies.

Aye but the difference between shark/crevasse deaths and tree deaths is that unlike crevasses and sharks, trees are almost everywhere and most peple are exposed involuntarily to risk from trees regularly. If the law allows it, a landowner can ensure tree risk free occupation by removing all trees in and near a property. So yes the odds can be reduced until you leave the property to go to work or the shops or to visit someone. Funnily enough, I'd bet less people are killed by their own trees than by other people's trees. I want to know if anyone's ever been attacked by a shark on a glacier.

R.u. much more common on Horse Chestnut. P.f. may be possible but I've never seen it on Horse Chestnut. Cut a slice from it, if it's R.u. the pore area t the base wiill be orange, if it's P.f. it will be white or off-white.

That's goign to take a week to digest. I agree about fallacious reasoning, there's some really dubious ideas that have been embedded in arboriculture that never did pass the test in the first place but have been pushed by their proponents. Dangerous.

OK, here it is. There is nothing in the thread last year that states that an actual TPO application for removal was ever submitted. What was submitted was a CA notification. The meeting of a s211 CA notification with a TPO does not constitute refusal of a TPO application. Indeed, there has been no TPO application (that we know of so far). If so, there can be no basis for compensation. If anything I am surprised that an appeal has been accepted. Apeal against what? A challenge to a TPO being made is a whole different thing. A challenge to the validity of a TPO based on defective service of notices is yet another thing. That was the subject of last year's discussion.

Maybe I'm missing something here.... A Council will only be responsible for damage following a refusal if the damage was foreseeable at the time of refusal (or maybe at time of application). But in this case, according to the link we have been given, a CA notification was put in and was countered with a TPO. In that case there had been, strictly speaking, no TPO application. I am going to have to read the whole saga again...

The COuncil in specific circumstances would be responsible for damage, but I cannot see any interpretation of the legislation that would make it responsible for the costs of removing a fallen tree. I think Johnelle made this distuinction in his questions.

Yes it is £150 a year and Autocad is £250 a month! I'll give it a try. Thanks for the recommendation.

Interesting, thanks. Apparently doesn't support the latest vertions of .dwg drawings but I can give it a shot with a recent dwg and see whether it still works minus features or whether it doesnt' work at all.

Thanks it looks like a good solid application, but unfortunately it would leave me witht eh same issue I have just now in that it doesn't accept .dwg files.

Hello can anyone recommed a CAD programme for general map work? I currntly have PT Mapper which only works with very limited functionality with dxf drawings and seesm to have issues with many of the drawings I am sent by architects. I am having to convert from their dwgs to dxf using an on-line convertor which is not ideal. AutoCAD seems to be the industry leader but it is shockingly expensive if only being used occasionally, There seem to be zillions of cheap or free substitutes (some of the free ones just mean the trial version is free) and I have used LibreCAD for a while but it does not like dwgs and does not let in anything bigger than 10MB.There are so many to choose from I don't know where to start. CorelDraw, TurboCAD, Vectorworks...

Pseudotsuga macrocarpa?

Risk of ivy growing in the countryside? It's probably been growing in the contryside for as along as trees have. The trees it kills are really good habitat. The idea of a nice clean tree with branches only above 8 feet is a human fantasy. Nature's nature, and it's brutal. Personally I loathe ivy on trees, from my climbing days, but it exists and is nearly impossible to get rid of so it just has to be seen as part of ecology. The range of leaf shapes and sizes for H.h is perplexing, hard to believe it's the same species sometimes let alone part of the same individual. I pause to ponder ivy occasionaly, and I have planted some variegated ones in my garden, but I'm not losing any sleep over this issue, and good luck with your quest.

Prevent recurrence (a bit of chicken wire would do) and see how it recovers. Apple growers routinely deliberately sever bark to promote particular growth habits of apple trees. It might well recover. Keep it fed. Keep the rabbit fed too.

As a risk surveyor I usualy only recommend removal or severance to allow suspected defects to be identifed now or at future surveys, or where the extent of ivy is clearly causing trees to be unduly tall or overextended as a means of not being killed from lack of light. In either case this is restricted to trees near targets or trees important for visual amenity (Cat A or B). It's then the tree owner's decision whether to accept the recommendation or not. It would take a court case to show whether a tree owner is negilgent in ignoring the recommendation to allow a suspected defect to be fully assessed.

As this has absolutely nothing to do with trees, I am delighting already in the time I will save by not engaging with this thread at all from here on in.

I believe Sorbus Intl sells second-hand reconditioned ones now and again.

Looks like ash with cankers, probably just Chalara but could be Pseudomonas.

That's a compilcated question. Have you got a 'for example..."?

Thaks, a valid example. And a simple test of weighing up value against removal costs. To me helliwell is really simple to use. NO valuation judgement is needed, as all 'values' are determined by the £s per point decided annually by the Tree Council per the AA. One size fits all, from Mayfair to Muckle Flugga

A bit farther afield but here's another bit of construction made of cornish granite. The monument to the great war situated on top of Dundee Law, a hill in the centre of the city. The big plagioclases crystals in it were apparently known by the cornish miners as 'horses teeth'. Nothing to do with trees but beautiful anyway.