daltontrees

Councils may be trying to shun maintenance responsibilities, the standard request to a Council round here to cut anything is basically 'you can cut it as long as it doesn't cost us anything'. In your situation you could ask Highways if it's their trees. If they say no, it doens't prove anything but it is a get-out-of-jail-free card for you. If it says the trees are its, that could be difficult to challenge. I wonder if a contractor could get done for breach of Forestry Act instead of the customer? Same scenario as TPOs and CAs, isn't it? Tree contractors are specialists, they should know to check on behalf of customer. If you think it's difficult, count your blessings you are not up here where we have a whole new Act and significant changes to the 'license' laws. There seems to be Scottish Forestry people out scouring the country for offenders, like so many ring wraiths. Or some curtain twitcher calls them and they're tapping you on the shoulder before you've got the choke off.

Nah! Pop.

Perhaps you are trying to establish a rule from an example, but from all I know it doesn't work that way. The vesting arises from that whihc is maintained as public. Verges may be important to Highways if they contain services, comprise visibility splays, have lighting columns, lots of different reasons. The legal rule is clear, but its application extent will always depend on circumstances. I'm in Scotland and officially we have Roads, not Highways. We too have the same rule but this has shown to be a little vague in its application and I recall it has gone to court a few times. It always helps to have an obvious delineation like a fence or a line or a wall or a hedge or a ditch, but there isn't always one. In the OP's case it looked like shrubs with several distinct trees. I found I couldn't conclude anything from it.

Looks a lot like Inonotus dryadaeus (or is it Pseudoinonotus?)

The exemptions are clear in the legislation. 'To prevent danger'. The streetview pics suggest the trees were not dead, but that wold have been a valid reason not because a 'dead' exemption exists (it doesn't) but because a dead tree is not a tree. Diseased is only an issue if it is creating danger that needs to be prevented or, in the case of Dutch Elm Disease, if more than half the crown is dead.

It's not that simple. Verges and tree on them usually vest in the Highways Authority, regardless of who owns or owned the land beneath. This does not need to be shown on title deeds as it is a blanket statutory vesting. Mynor's book devotes 11 pages to this one issue. Maybe that gives an idea of the challenging nature of the issue? The bit you cite from Highways appears to be a particular situation of boundary trees, not verge trees.

I'm not out to persuade, without the facts all us humble onlookers can do is use it as an opportunity ot refine understandings of the rules and regulations. Maybe the trees were in a garden when they were chopped, although the evidence doesn't support it. The wall does look new, or at least recently cleaned. What we can definitely agree on is that Councils just make stuff up, and aren't good at it either.

Sorry, I'm still not getting it. If it's not in a garden it doesn't have that exemption. It doesn't really matter what other use it is in. Maybe you're confusing it with the public open space exemption, but since that could only have been exercised by the Council it's unlikely. In my view the public open space exemption would not apply anyway. The test of it is not public access, it is purpose (or use, in a slightly different word). There may be a whole side of the story we don't know about, though.

So it might be breach of Forestry Act, possible restocking obligation, criminal damage and a civil action for loss of tres owned by Council. Don't know, do we, but it can be edifying to rehearse the arguments.

I'll say again, it's the use of the land, not the ownership that matters. I can't see anyone successfully arguing that, having separated their garden from the public road and land that either officially or unofficially is used as road verge, the strip of ground is still part of their garden. Another ocnsideration is that Roads and Highways vests verges and in some cases the trees on them in the public onwership regardless of process and regardless of ownership of the land beneath the verge. That would explain the Counci's comments. It will have a register of adopted roads and verges that it can check.

That said, the streetview pic shows fairly small trees despite diameter, and may have snuck in under the 5 cube a quarter exemption.

The picture shows the stumps on a publicly accessible verge which might be in private ownership but is separated from the garden by a brick boundary wall. It's not the ownership that counts, it's the use. I'm not saying the law has been broken. I said "This appears to be a breach of the Forestry Act as there are no clear exemptions that could have been used to avoid the need for a felling license." That is based on what anyone reading this post and its various links could know and see.

It's 'public open spaces' and they are defined in the Forestry Act and can't ever include public road corridors unless laid out as a public garden or used for the purpose of public recreation. Utilities are exempt only if (and to the extent that) the trees are causing operational problems. Councils are not exempt.

They're not in a garden, thye are in the verge of a public road.

This appears to be a breach of the Forestry Act as there are no clear exemptions that could have been used to avoid the need for a felling license.

It is probably a decision that you have to involve the client in. It is reasonable to tolerate slightly higher than 'acceptable' risk if there is a particular objective to be achieved in doing so, such as retaining habitat. I would say let the client know that there is apossible elevated (but unkown) level of risk in keeping the ivy but it is probably habitat-rich. Recommend removal of ivy for reinspection if your inspection gives you cause to suspect hidden gross defects, but offer advice on the tolerability of risk for the others. Let them decide. That said it should be possible to discover gross defects without ivy removal, so it's maybe not that much of a risk to keep the ones that aren't obviously knackered athte base. Also have regard to the published safety guidance from the Forestry Commission on brittle failure of Chalara-infected standing trees. There's the hedgerow Regualtions too, they may be relevant. And nfelling license requirements. You haven't said what country you are in, though.

cute when young but these can grow way too big for a front lawn.

I got bitten this year in April in Forfar. Had one land on me in Penicuik in March, was the last thing he ever did. Deeply satisfying to splat that early in the year considering the rathe they reproduce at. Wee bastards.

Important clarification. BS5837 says less than a150mm AND young. Some species at that diameter could not possibly be classified as young. Hawethorn for example. I'd also hesitate to call a 150 birch 'young', they usually fit better into the 'semi-mature' or even 'early mature' lifestage. If this is a woodland TPO, surely the only test for retention v loss is importance for the amenity of the area? Only if the TPO is to be disregarded as a material consideration should the merit of individual tree be looked at in the context of a design proposal.

I mikght have to back-pedal a bit on my comments. Gleditisia is a member of the genus FAbaceae which usually (but not always) has root nodules housing bacteria that can fix atmospheric nitrogen. So there could be something more complex going on. Anyway, if the tree's well the tree's well. The pattern looks like it's following shallow roots and lusher grass.

I'd leave it alone as it may be mycorrhizal, living in mutually beneficial association with tree roots, providing essential atmospheric nitrogen fixing supplied to the tree in return for sugars. I'd take my cue from the condition of the tree crown. If it's doing well, it's probably becasue of instead of despite the fungus. One of the worst things for a tree is grass all around it. Grass is allelopathic.

I have to say I am one of those who have said something like this in the past, but I would deem soft rubberised seals to be a fault. You old-fashioned mortar filled joints might let tiny roots through but they will never be able to crush the mortar and become thickened and woody. Not so the rubberised seal, but even then there is a limit to how far the seal can be pushed before the root is pressing against PVC. I wonder if the trial had been allowed to run for another decade whether the pipes would have been distorted. I've just been reading stuff about the current situation. Research in Germany has resulted in fresh recent DIN technical guidance which provides for tree root proof jointing. An interesting aspect is that root growth into pipes is encouraged by oxygen escape from pipe joints. Anyway, the result is that elastomer joints (TYTON) correctly fitted have an estimated leak proof pressure of 8 bar after 100 years, whcih equals the generally assumed penetration pressure of angiosperms and is about double that of gymnosperms (conifers). So it is fair to say, as the research concluded, that "“Roots can grow not only into leaky pipes and pipe joints but also tight pipe joints which do not offer sufficient resistance to the roots.” It goes on to state: “With new constructions and the correct manufacture of pipe joints it can be assumed that the danger of root penetration into the pipeline is slight. In order to increase resistance to root penetration, additional constructional safety measures can be adopted". The choice of root resistant pipe joints is one of the key passive measures put forward.

Whether the trees are protected is a matter of fact. They were either there when the Order was made or they weren't. It is down to proof. If the Council say anything under 32 cm diameter is not protected, I'd take that. 32cm is a girth of 100 cm, and with 2.5cm = 1 inch that means by Mitchell's 'rule' the tree would be 40 years old. The Council's not giving much away but if they are slow grown individuals they could be 32cm and still be well over 50. I'd probably be looking to take an increment bore of a representative tree and count rings. I did this recently for a client and it worked a treat, it shut up the objectors immediately.

Looks impossible to reduce enough to improve light AND not ruin the tree. Go for crown lift, let light under rather than over. Council should have no problem with crown lift of smaller branches. Plus get rid of all that excess shrub height. Shrubs aren't protected. That's my thoughts. I'd also look into insurance and if a survey is required for that get it done and use the same consultant to advise on and make TPO application.

We'll have to disagree about this. I agree that not appealing conditions is acquiescence to the conditions. But not forever. Conditions that express no time limits or are not discharged by specific actions or deemed discharges do not necessarily go on forever. Conditions are generally to make sure certain things happen before development starts and certain other things don't happen during development. They're transient by purpose. They are implicitly enforceable for the duration of development unless otherwise stated. The only people that know about them are the Council and the applicant. Unlike TPOs or CAs they aren't out there for all to see years or decades later or recorded with the title deeds. No-one is expected to research planning conditions when they buy a 20 year old house. You couldn't even if you tried. It would be ridiculous for a Council to expect old planning conditions to be effective in protecting trees, and for that reason it would be nonsense to expect prosecution or enforcement to succeed. One doesn't need to be lawyer to know this or to tell clients that this is the way the world works. Besides, lawyers and plannign practitioners and the realistic sort of Council officers have been telling me this for decades. I'm not about to stand up in court and construct a proof, but some things are so obvious in the day-to-day conduct of business that lawyers aren't needed. Not 100%, but I know where the line is. If I ever get round to having an authoritative book on planning law I'll give chapter and verse. In the meantime Mynors has shaped and supports my practical approach.