daltontrees

Fine, but personally I would like if the industry understood the principles behind these things. The OP might have wanted a yes or a no but he world rarely works thats way. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed him forever. OP asked if he could prune back to boundary. That's a quite extreme. You said absolutely not. That 's quite extreme too. Technically therefore me saying it isn't true is correct. The in-between scenario is that pruning can take place without TPO approval in specific circumstances. The TPO relates to the tree, and it it's a group/area/woodland of trees it relates to all trees originating within that area. But it is a fundamentally important principle that statute should not stop anyone doing what he is obliged to do at common law, or under any other law for that matter. That is the basis of many of the exemptions. One can even see that when risk of damage is foreseeable but not imminent and a Council refuses permission for works to prevent damage, the obligation for compensation passes to it because it is preventing the tree owner from doing what he should and would, but for the TPO. That is only fair. All this points to an important distinction. The TPO is over the trees, not the land, but restrains the owner of the land on which the tree originates. When the tree overhangs or sends roots into adjacent property, the tree owner is in 'tort' (or delict in Scotland) and he is not restrained from acting to remove the tort. Neither is the encroached party, he too must suffer the tree overhanging or growing under his property but only to the ponit where it is or is about to become a 'nuisance'. This usually involves damage but does not have to (see Williams and Waistell v Network Rail case a few years ago). It is not, therefore a clear cut case of whether it is the tree or the property that the TPO affects. It is the tree up to the point where the owner of the tree is obliged or entitled by statute or common law to do something about the tree.

You can but you need to (a) be sure that there is or imminently will be a legal nuisance and (b) take photos etc. to justify it after the event and (c) only do enough to deal with the nuisance. Don't get carried away, it's not a license to destroy. Oddly enough, in Englandshire anyway, there is a requirement to notify the Council when exercising the dead or risky tree exemptions, but not for the nuisance exemption.

Thank you for confirming. I've only read about it in books and case law.

Sorry but that's not true. The tree is protected but if it is causing or will imminently cause a legal nuisance then the encroached landowner or the tree owner can remove, reduce or prevent the nuisance. The law on this is crystal clear in statute. Pick your country and I will give you the Act and section or Regulation.

If the failure was foreseeable at the time of application and was drawn to the attention of the Council, refusal would usually leave the Council liable for compensation for the damage for a period afterwwards. The period depends where you are. In England I think it's a year. It gets more complicated if you appeal against refusal (which one generally should) as this might extend the period of liability until after the appeal is decided (which I'm told in England takes months and months) .

Close... 'wilful damage'.

That would be wilful damage, carrying unlimited fine on indictment.

Has to be a yew (Taxus baccata).

Straight in with the abrasive smart-ass denigrating attitude as usual Mr Evans. And you still seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder about other consultants and experts. And more thinly-veiled advertising for your paid-for training. Business as usual.

Cutting roots rarely has an immediately destabilising effect, studies have shown that you need to get quite close before the destabilisation is measurable. But the more and bigger you cut the more likely decay will take hold and progress into the rest of the rootplate or buttresses. I woudl have thought from looking at the photos that if you lift the concrete carefully you could put down a 50-75mm layer of Cellweb then pavoirs on top that and possibly not have to cut any roots at all. I am finding that Cellweb + no-fines granular fill as a sub-base is quicker, cheaper and just as good as (in some ways better than) compacted Type 1.

One of my brighter ideas.

It's a poor layout by the builders. Lamp post right up through the tree. No light reaching pavement. Tiny grass area for rooting. Roots are already bouncing off the kerb and both driveways. Of all the cherries in the street this one is by far the most vigorous. I am speculating it is because the light helps growth at night and keeps leaf on later into year.

I did an awkward reduction today on a Tibetan cherry in the pouring rain. I don't think it would have been possible without using the lamp post as a top anchor. Actually couldn't have asked for better. First time for everything

And free advice, obviously.

"Pointlessly measured"? How utterly tragic to read all that we know about the benefits of trees, about the proportionality of risk reduction measures, the importance of habitats and the avoidance of needless tree damage and customer expense swept aside by his phrase. The point is that it is measured. From a few photos you, I an everybody else don't know enough to say whether the tree will last another 1 year, 10 years, 100 years. So what's 'sensible' about taking it down, based on very little information? Does the slight imbalance offend the eye? I'll be even more to the point. Why take it down? And those are not rhetorical questions. Please explain.

It was what is known as a rhetorical question. Because the answer is 'obviously', it suggests it would withstand a climb.

Has it stood up to the last storm? Do you think it could stand to have someone's body weight in it for a few hours in good weather long enough to reduce it by the first 100 kg? Different matter if you're going to shock-load it.

There's just one question, and that is what/who will be hit in the weather conditins that would cause it to fall in the direction of lean. Any instinct to fell it without this being considered is probably motivated by wanting firewood or paid work. It looks to be going slowly. Has it stood up to several recent blasts? A height reduction might allow it to carry on for a few decades. Bulge at the back should have a matching dip at the front, otherwise it might just be adaptive growth. Or both. No-one can say based in these photos.

Walnut is high up my list of species that don't recover from pruning wounds. If the cause is butchery the treatment is to hope.

Doesn't look like Daldinia to me. I've never seen Daldinia on lime either and never on a tree tha wasn't dead already or as good as.

Seems a pretty good match. So if it's Brazilian Peppertree best prevent it spreading seeds or the neighbours will not be happy. Dammit now I've got to go off and see if it needs a pollinating partner.

Yes that's the same one I was looking at.

I had coincidentally just homed in on Brazilian Peppertree.

To be honest I don't know. Florida is in hardiness zones 9 and 10 whereas most of UK is 8, so it's possible your plants are somethings that nobody here has ever seen growing outdoors in the UK. Especially if they're native to US. Hopefully someone else will be able to ID them.