daltontrees

Indeed, why complain except to help the next guy? If you are within rights to remove tree, do it and let the Council decide whther it should try and do anyhting about it. Its legal dept will probably close the file at that point.

I don't think this is quite right. If a TPO is made to stop removal of a dodgy tree, the Council is not liable for damage. It only becomes liable after a subsequent TPO application is refused AND if the application made it clear that the damage was foreseeable. There's another twist too. If the damage was so foreseeable that it was serious and imminent, the Council would not be liable because the risk reduction works could have been (and therefore should have been) done under exemption. But in general yes, Councils usually know and sometimes should be reminded that their refusals do not come without risk to them.

The Council is entitled to say that it would like lesser works than the notified ones, But it can't insist, all it can do either expressly or hinted at is to threaten to put a TPO on unless you agree. Sometimes this is bluff, sometimes ignorance, sometimes real. But if your bluff is not called by a TPO within 6 weeks, you can go ahead and remove the tree. But remember, the Council can make a TPO after the 6 weeks but before removal and it trumps the notice.

I believe you are right the 6 weeks start when you send the notice, but to my mind that would put the onus on you to prove you sent it on a particular date and calculate your expiration. Maybe not a huge problem to do but on the other hand if you work to the dates on the planning portal then it takes the problem away, customer can also see the date is official, so I have always just followed that path as least resistance. 6 weeks from Council's receipt of the notice, or the date they could be expected to have received it, basically posting date plus a couple of working days. I have recently had a Council take 2 weeks to acknowledge receipt, and they said 6 weeks started then. I disagreed and they reluctantly accepted I was right. Tree was removed 6 weeks and 3 days after notice was posted. I always post my notices, but I think the situation in Scotland is diffrerent whereby ePlannign route is not mandatory. You literally can't go wrong with a posted notice and proof of posting. It is un-resistible by the Council, so I'd say that's the line of least resistance.

I think you are right, but I don't agree about Google Lens, it is pretty hit or miss when I try it. It's pretty rubbish on fingi, anyway, and occasiolanly right about plants.

Kevin is right up to a point. The law (E&W) says a Notice cannot require removal below 2m and this has been interpreted as not allowing action that will kill the hedge and therefore indirectly result in less than 2m. Personally I think that is a load of bollocks, but it seems to be embedded in practice now since one of the very earliet appeals. It is a matter of interpretation, not a matter of law. Again, personally, I am convinced it would not stand up in court, but then who has £7,000 to raise a judicial review against and Inspector's decision?

Anybody out there in central Scotland thinking about getting into consultancy and survey work over the next few months with a view to building up to a few days a week? Give me a shout. I have loads of work and my assistant is at capacity too. Also I noticed South Lanarkshire Council is looking for a full time arb assistant, looks like decent money if you don't mind working for a Council and prefer to stay dry and warm. I'll pass on the job spec if anyone wants it.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/phytophthora-pluvialis#symptoms

I'm not going to spend time answering his question unless he aswers mine, otherwise I will be (re)writing a book on generalities relating to trees near buildings. Again.

I have always tied my own. I was taught to tighten it up so hard that it cannot possibly ever ever come undone. Like 200kg pull. To make it LOLERable stick a waterproof label with date of tying on it and then seal in with heat shrink wrap tube. My hot tip is to remember to put the shrink wrap tube on the loop before you tie the knot. The sliding one cannot be tightened up and is therefore in theory vulnerable to working itself loose. Even if you adjust it to its final loop lengths then tighten it, it doesn't cinch together quite the same.

Location will affect likelihood of shrinkable clays, likelihood of persistent soil moisture deficits and which laws apply. Among other things.

You can see in the picture one of the caps is missing and the shaggy stem is visible. Rules out shaggy inkcap and shaggy parasol.

North west of where? Location makes a big difference to the answer.

Pic isn't good enough, I wouldn't jump to the Kd conclusion. Quite often between the buttresses of Sycamore I find white markings but they turn out to be superficial an associated with leaf mould. There 's no mistaking true Kd. The white vertion naever covers big areas, it is in spots initially and then around the rim of larger grey areas as these develop.

Yep, but prognosis depends on species. G. applanatum is slow moving and possibly only consuming dead wood. G. australe is worse as it may be killing and consuming. BUt i don't knwo for sure, depends wihich text you consult and possibly depends on host species.

Thanks, noted. So if a tree is to be cut down because it is dead, it does not require permission, it requires 5 days notice in advance and there is an obligation to "plant another tree of an appropriate size and species at the same place". But there is no option for the Council to impose a condition. Indeed, it looks like a Council shouldn't even take an application for remove a dangerous tree. Finally, though, if (and only if) the replacement is not planted then and only then) the Council can specify size and species. Let the dead stump rot away. End of TPO. Could voluntarily plant a replacement, but it will not be TPO'd unless the stump is removed and the Council notified.

Keep me right here, please. I try to keep up with 4 separate sets of TPO law in the UK, and I sometimes get confused. On what basis does a notified dead tree removal trigger either the obligation to replant or the right of the Council to impose a condition de novo.

But you haven't answered my question about conditions of consent last year. So I will have to answer this the hard way [sigh]. If you got consent last year to cut the tree down to 1m, and there were no conditions attached to it and the tree then died, you did not need to ask for consent to remove it completely. I'd go as far as to say you shouldn't have asked. There is an exemption for removal of a dead tree. End of story. If the consent last year said that you had to plant a replacement if the tree died as a result of reduction to 1 metre, you have to replace. The Council shoudl only have done this if it believed the tree had a chance of survival without being cut down to 1 metre AND was adamant that a tree (any tree) at this location was in the interests of the amenity of the area. No conditions means the Council implicitly knew that it was a last desparate act to salavage something. It didn't work, the tree died. It is then no longer a tree and no longer protected.

Nothing in the Regulations, other than that the Cooncil can grant consent subject to conditions. The conditions could specify species. One could appeal against the condition if the species selection is inappropriate, but it would be difficult to win an appeal against a condition requiring the same species to be planted unless there wasa good reason fort that species being inappropriate. Even where there has been an unlawful removal, the remover is only obliged to plant a suitable size and species replacement. Strictly speaking, it is for the remover to decide this, the Council could only challenge the choice on the basis of unsuitability. But if the remover fails to plant a replacement, the Council CAN specify.

Please confirm what country you are in? Also did you get a formal permission a year ago? Were there conditions attached? What were they? On the face of it I think the Council probably can't insist on a replacement. But proceed carefully, you may have to remove it (if that's what you want to do) under exemption rather than with permission.

If it is a bolete, it will have pores underneath instead of gills. A very useful starter for ID.

Yes!

You don't need to. You need to make them appreciate that an Inspector on appeal will see sense. Then it's up to the COuncil to decide if it wants the grief of losing an appeal. That said, referring to Council officials like that on a publicly visible website aint going to get you off to a good start in persuading anyone. Some TOs are decent hard working people, most are, although there are a couple that I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire. I'm not fussed about offending them, they probably know already.

I think I know how it happens, but not why it only happens to some sycamores.

Urgency depnds on what might get hit when it fails at the base, particularly if it has any lean. But removing the brackets probably only needs to be done annually to prevent spore dispersal. Some suggest removing the brackets will stimulate more to grow immediately but I don't believe this as I think the annual fruiting is triggered internally, something to do with CO2 concentrations. It would be interesting to know what happens if you do remove them. It can only help. Fruiting body growth takes all its energy untimately from decaying the tree.