daltontrees

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.

At the last meeting of the Arb Association scottish branch there was a talk by a dendrochronologist. When asked about the reliability of various girth/diameter based methods of estimating the age of trees she said it was ridiculous to try. The Whyte method published by the forestry commission is a bit more scientific than Mitchell's 'rule', it gives lists for species and growing situations and is based on a fixed increase in diameter to maturity then a fixed increase in cross sectional area. But clearly Leyland's Rat doesn't read books. I recall that the Collins Guide by Owen and Moore which is the successor to the Mitchell guide says if it 'Grows quickly in any soil to 30 metres then blows over'.

Sycamore is Acer... I'd be waiting till midsummer to see just how much difference there is in leaf colour. Even the pink leaves of Brilliantisimum will end up green by late summer. But generally pale leaved varieties will be outcompeted by fully green leaves so if you do have a full Sycamore stock throwing out a vigorous shoot it will eventually do in the rest of the crown. I'd probably be lookign to bonsai the full sycamore side with frequent pruning, just so see how it coexists with the variety. Would make an interesting talking point. You could slow down the sycamore side too by removing a sector of cambium.

Bark and leaves look like apple to me. Beyond that who knows. Looks Profusiony.

Don't think so, the few leaves in the OPs pictures are oval and not really like Pauls Scarlet. Also the central petals of Pauls Scarlet are white or almost white.

This is interesting. Does it take a long time to airspade the holes? What depth can you get down to? Or do you just do the surface layers where roots are most likely to occur?

As the name suggests, boulder clays have a wide range of particle and clast sizes. The clays shrink in the voids between the matrix of sand and silt particles without changing the overall volume. The worst clays are pure clays where shrinkage must result in volume loss.

I don't think there would be enforcement action. That;'s what I meant generally as 'prosecution'. I am quite happy to tell Councils that they are flogging a dead horse. Some Councils get it wrong all the time. I have stood one of them down on this very issue. They gave in. I am not out to prove anything by this, just to serve clients well. If a Council is preventing one of my clients doing something lawfully with their own trees that are plunging their garden into darkness I will tell them and the Council that reliance on spent planning conditions is invalid. In this particular case the Council told me it used planning conditions because it couldn't afford to make TPOs for everything. This is clearly abuse of guidance and law. I told them where to go, and they went. They shouldn't get away with this sort of nonsense. I hope other tree owners in the area benefitted too. I have nothing against protection of trees but TPOs are the long-term correct mechanism. Conversely I am all for adequate resourcing of Councils. No problem. I'm not a tree surgeon any more. I don't need to see permission granted or application fees wasted. I just need to be able to advise clients of their rights and options. Covering my arse by insisting on needless permissions and delays isn't in my repertoire. It's not posturing, the CURRENT government guidance says ""it is not reasonable to use conditions to secure the long term protection when TPOs can be used." I can't find another interpretation of that.

Yes all clay shrinks on dessication. But if it has bigger particle sizes mixed in, the volume changes and loss of bearing capacity are less significant ('modified plasticiy index'). Throw in the usual consideration of persistent soil moisture deficit. I am in Scotland, most of the country is smeared with glacial tills (clay) but in all my years I have never seen a subsidence or heave case. Maybe that's because it rains a lot of the time.