daltontrees

Worth considering Salix exigua? It has that leaf edge occasionally.

This is why trees have evolved to shed leaves every year, to get rid of accumulated pests and diseases, damaged leaf etc. It's a willow, they do this.

Shame you've been talked into removing the poplars based on imagined huge stature. These look to be P. candicans 'Aurora' which is a rarity of a poplar on 2 counts. Firstly it is easily managed at a smaller stature, especially as far north as Dumfries. No harder to manage than the cherry, possibly easier. Secondly it is a tree that changes colour all through the growing season. Starts green then goes pink and green then yellow and light green then autumn colours. I've seen them tick over in Selkirk and Bothwell, where they were being managed as little more than large shrubs.

Don't you ever get simple jobs that don't involve the machiavellian machinations of municipal muppets?

Not that much of a riddle, s154 trumps CA, it's one of the statutory exemptions.

Arbtakk discussed this to death a couple of years ago. I recall my take was firstly to gauge how badly the client wants to keep the tree. This will establish whether it's a fight or a budget issue. Secondly if it's a fight, put an application in to remove (or possibly combined crown and root prune during a wall rebuild) and make it clear the tree is damaging the wall and will continue to do so. If refused, the Council will then become liable in compensation for further damage. You'd want a look at the possibility too of catastrophic failure, and if that's a reasonable possibility it might be defensible to undertake reduction based on the TPO risk exemption. The rebuilding will depend on available space. A reinforced concrete wall will be a lot stronger per volume than masonry, so a replacement RC wall could be faced with stone slips cut from the existing wall. It's going to come down to what is considered a reasonable hoop-jumping extent. The Council might not give a damn about expense but the courts don't say you have to go to any lengths to find an engineering solution. And if the Council's being unreasonable then appeal a refusal. An Inspector will probably (eventually) take a more pragmatic view. Ideaslly then the parties will from the outset will anticipate a sensible appeal decision and won't make it have to go that far. The pics suggest it's gone beyond doubt that removal of the wall would contribute quite soon to tree failure. The stones look pushed out so far that it's not just soil pressire, it's actual woody roots. Seriously limited options for cutting back the sorts of knuckles that cause that kind of deflection. The roots won't be needed for support unless htey're going straight downwards, but cuttign them in an aerated 'soil' environment with no room for callus will let in infection. Wrong tree, wrong place. How is the wall protected? Listed building? Is htis in an area of shrinkable clays?

That is shrinkable clay country. It is really impossible to say anythign definite about heave and subsidence on a property wothoout seeing the trees and house. If you have a clear survey and if insurance against subsidence and heave is available at a reasonable price, perhaps that's all you need. You are worried about an oak falling, an oak that thas been there for over 60 years and might still be there in another 100, a tree that has withstood decades of storms. Trees most often are tested to destruction in stormy weather, when no-one is outside. Buildings offer quite a lot of protection against trees too. I'd no more worry about it than I would about taking my daughter to the local park where there are also trees. If you want peace of mind get a tree consultant to inspect the trees every few years. Not free advice form a tree surgeon but a paid-for report. Spread over time it will probably cost you about £0.50 a day for extra peace-of-mind.

I have no experience of it. Might be the original infection point for the fungus.

That's good advice. A suddenly released cable under a lot of tension is an instant killer. Especially with a kio of metal hook on the end.

Are you able to go back and see how this has developed ina a few weeks time?

It's looking a little like P. dryadaeus too, but anamorphic Fistulina would be much more interesting.

Subsidence and heave risks are dependent on location. Where is the property?

Cotoneaster frigidus or C. x watereri a.k.a. Tree Cotoneaster.

Sometimes I am quite embarrased at the treatment members of the public get when coming onto this site for help. If you're the type of memeber who thinks it's going to be too difficult a job, if you're the type who will criticise a would-be client for not understanding the ins and outs of tree law and risk assessment, for not knowing what you know, well fair enough the poster is better off without you, and probably better off without the cynicism and speculation. At least Mark J has had a go at a helpful answer, although I'd add to his comments that a report that states that it is not possible to reach a definitive conclusion (because you can't see the tree fully) can be relevant and useful in the right context. I have had first-hand experiences of supposed survey reports which are shockingly incompetent, by people who are way out of their depth. Sorry to have to be blunt but they have mostly been from contractors playing at consultancy. And a few from 'consultants' who really ought to go back to school or back up their tree experience with some structured learning. So fair enough to the OP for asking for help. He is clearly worried about a tree and needs help from someone who knows their stuff. What's wrong with that? He will be better off with someone with the right helpful attitude who's not seeing it as a difficult client. If I was in the area I'd help but I am 300 miles away. Honestly, some of you have been not just unhelpful but quite rude. It's bloody obvious what needs to be done for this would-be client. I hope he finds someone with the right credentials and almost cas importantly the right attitude. He can message me for a preliminary opinion of he wants.

Nah, the more complicated the better. Good if it puts off the lightweights.

Ditto. Location may lead to a specific recommendation. Or you can try the Arb Association's list of registered consultants or thevInstitute of Chrtered Foresters (which also covers arboriculture) list of members..

Just plain ash. Maybe people are confused when they see a healthy ash, it's so rare now. This is what ash trees used to look like in a slightly alkali soil.

My sis goes on and on about Google Lens, so I tried it on a common tree. It got the ID wrong, and suggested 6 alternatives, all of which were wrong.

definitely a Thuja

No disrespect but how can you not know what rare species you have? Did you buy a lucky bag of seeds and shuck them round? Doesn't look like campestre. Could do with some nitrogen.

Probably Malus, maybe just domestica. Subtle IDs from juvenile leaves are generally doomed to failure.

That's no Sorbus I've ever seen.

'Poplar Petiole Gall Aphid'. Never seen it in person.

What Jake said, near impossible not to get tears with willows.

Agreed, but I wouldn't say 'major', as felling restrictions slow down removals to 20 cube a year or only allow it in gardens. WE could discuss 'valuable' all day, but in brief the trees on a development site may be valuable to society but not to the developer, so the developer gets to say what goes. In most ways taht's fair or else we would be compelling everyone everywhere to keep their trees and whereas personally I woudn't mind that, the burden of admin would be huge and it starts to sound a bit like an authoritarian state. Or we pay people to have trees. Again, I wouldn't mind that in principle.