daltontrees

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.

Parts of MK are on Oxfprd Clays, parts on Lias Group. These are both capable of being shrinkable. Other parts of MK are Great Oolite, zero shrinkage. There are also superficial deposits of glacial clays. If your builder has assessed for you, keep a note of it and maybe you don't need to do anything else. Heave needs shrinkabel clays, a history of dessication by trees, then removal of trrees but fuindamentaly the foundations need to be of inadequate depth. If the new foundations are suitable there is no issue. You maybe don't knwo the situation with the existing foundations. But a skittery wee hawthorn? Seems unlikely to cause heave to the existing building whcih will be separated fromrehydration by hte new building. A patio and Acodrain won't stop rehydration. It usually happens over quite a period of time. If it's going to happen it's going to happen. Doesn't look like an issue based on what you have said. If there are no signs of tree roots at 0.5m and the founds are to be at 1.5m, I can't see the issue.

I didn't mean appealing against a TPO, I meant appealing against a refused application for works to a TPO'd tree. The Council is only liable from a refusal.

The wording can only be interpreted as prohibiting 'damage', no need to infer commas. The government guidance is really quite clear, conditions should not be used as substitute for TPOs. If the trees are not protected in any other way, and they were felled a decade after completion of the development and the Council tried to prosecute, it wouldn't get past their in-house lawyer never mind the CPS or the Fiscal. If it dies 20 years later, the rules are that there are no rules. Trees are no different from any other controlled part of a development. As soon as development is completed all sorts of changes happen. It is not and cannot be the role of planning to preserve a completed development in amber in perpetuity.

Here's the general priniciple of liability. Regardless of the TPO, if the tree was imminently dangerous and failed, causing damage or harm, and the risk could ahve been reduced under the statutory exemption, the law would say that you should have used the exemption. Can't blame the Council for not using a right that Parliament gave you. If the assesseed risk had been 'acceptable' then you would have a defensible position, and you would have no liability. Nor would the COuncil be compelled to grant approval for works. If the risk was assessed as being somewhere between acceptable and imminent, (call it 'tolerable') you have to apply for and and get TPO approval. If the tree failed before a decision, it's not clear who is liable but it's probably not the Council and because in applying for approval you have acted responsibly you are probably not liable either. I would expect this to be an insurable risk. If the application was refused (and setting aside rights of appeal) the Council will be liable for a fixed period afterwards as long as the damage was foreseeable at the time of application. The liability may not include liability to 3rd parties for harm (as opposed to damage). If the refusal is unreasonable, appeal. It will if nothing else extend the liability period. It might arguably transfer liability to the Inspector.

There's a big difference between clay soils and shrinkable clay soils. Where are you?

And 2011.

It was the same in the 2006 edition of the TPO guidance for England.

TAN 10 1997 is even firmer than that and says that "it is not reasonable to use conditions to secure the long terem protection when TPOs can be used."

Mynors, The Law of Trees, Forests and Hedgerows says that Government guidance is that "conditions should not be used to provide permanent protection; that is more effectively achieved using tree preservation orders..."

That tree probably won't be there in 10 years' time. Chris is good on this so far. Additinal things to note. There may be a lesser solution than felling, and the Council could refuse an application for felling if it thinks a reduction would protect amenity and make tree safe. The Council may be wanting to ensure that there is A tree at this location so the TPO should mean replacement no matter what route is gone down to achieve lawful removal. Council might be happy with that outcome. A report would be required to justify 5 day notice but would also be needed to justify removal on application AND to justify not reducing instead. Basically a report is required. I'd say get it formally assessed, and follow advice on reduction option, urgency of reduction or removal, or application to remove. I don't think you can make a move without a report of some sort. Seriously, don't remove based on 5 day notice without somebody objectively assessing it first or you could have a very uncomfortable retrospective justification to do.

It's not quite what you are asking, but in that situation I'd want to see the consent and the conditions first-hand. It is often helpful to see the report of handling too for clues as to how the council sees the tree issues. As a consultant you need to ask the right questiosn and be careful not to be the whipping boy if it all goes horribly wrong. Any tree works explicit in the application can be done without further consent, as long as there aren't conditions preventing it. Implicit tree works are a whole different business. It may be valid to say that although the application didn't state the removal of a tree, it is right in the middle of a proposed building so implicitly it has to go. The argument starts to lose water when it's not so clear-cut. And sometimes a 2D plan assumes a 3D solution but another 3D solution can protect a tree that otherwise might be lost. Such published evidence as there is about the destabilising effect of removing roots close to the stem is that it only has a minor immediate effect on stability. Later it might, but not right away. That makes it difficult to justify the logic that root removal resulting from implementation of a consent means that removal of a tree is 'necessary'. Perrin v Northampton got quite deep into what is meant by 'necessary', and it's quite a strict test. An interesting read. So I'd say you could present removal as an inevitable eventual requirement and put it to the Council, but be prepared for them to ask you to show that all other possibilities have been looked at and dismissed for good reasons. I suspect tha tthe problem really is when Councils grant consents and try to protect trees as an afterthought. If there was not tree survey, the Council might have assessed the trees itself, so you can't quite assume they haven't been considered. As I said, the report of handling mught help. But it's generally always dismaying to have afterthought protection conditions that conflict with explicit or implicit tree works. Glasgow City Council near me here frequently asks for a tree survey as one of the conditions. Howe ridiculous is that?

Metposts are better than digging but it's best to probe for suitable post positions first and use a fencing spec that allows post positions to be varied.

One can get too hung up on righteous indignation and technical debate on the finer points of the law. As I see it any Council in this situation who is found to have bungled, or realises that a JR will find them to have bungled, need only re-make the TPO correctly. The tree will therefore still be protected. Righteous indignation ensues, but still no cigar. It would be a brave person who assumed that because the TPO was not properly served, and who admits on a public forum that he knows the TPO exists, fells it on a technicality. Even if the TPO process is deficient the Order might still be valid, and at best one might have had an ignorance defence against prosecution. Until now, that is.

I recently replaced the carb on my blower witha chinese one. Absolute rubbish, the metal on them is soft and the threads stripped out on it first tighten. Impossible to get a good seal. Kind of looks like metal but isn't any kind I know. And I value my time so it wasn't nothing lost.

The white stuff will be resin. What's causing it is a different question, not possible to tell from these few pictures.

Ah OK thanks.

What's the purpose of the ribs?

Here's a biut of trivia. To my knowledge (and I've been looking for years) M.g. is the only tree common in the UK that has its buds behind (or occasionally beside) but never inside/in front of (distal to) the axil. That's quite a thing!

Pairs

Ah but look closer, it does have opposite bud scars everywhere. Some of the buds have not developed, giving it an alternate looking pattern. But the opposite buds were there.

I don't see there being very much flexibility in that stem. Could be winched. Acrow prop would do more bark damage. A nice forgiving new permanent prop would be needed. If trying it, do it before it comes back into leaf, it will be a good bit lighter. I wouldn't try and get it more than a few inches up. Heck I'd try it but I'd also be prepared for it not to work

Defo not taxodium, which has really pointed needles.

Why not?

Looks like there are lots of opposite pairs of bud scars but not all buds have developed, I'm saying this because the leaflets look to be in strongly opposite pairs, which rules out swamp cypress and rules in dawn redwood.