daltontrees

Not so. The 2012 Regulations are clear that tree works in a CA are exempt from control (and therefore from the need to notify) if they already have a felling license. Unfortunately the FC's online guidance is incorrect on this point.

I guess you haven't read the many lengthy posts. If you get a felling license you don't need to put in a s.211 notice.

Jon, good to hear about it from direct experience. I have enough bother keeping up with the new scottish legislation (written, seemingly, by a confused 10 year old) and the way it is panning out. Are there conditions and qualifications in english FLs that state that the license does not override undisclosed TPOs?

Jon this is what I have been saying, but there's one wee point to be added. Had the OP gone straight to the FC it might not have avoided the Council because the FC might automatically consult with the Council on any FL application in a CA. It doesn't have to, but it might. I believe there has always been a deliberate effort to align the Planning and Forestry Acts so that the need for double applications can be avoided in some situations. I think if the Council had come back within a week of notification and directed the notifier to the FC it would have appeared more reasonable but it still would have been legally wrong to try and prevent the works by doing so. And, after all, what does non-determination really mean? Determination is making a decision on an application, but s211 isn't an application, it's a notification. All we can possibly surmise is that the Council means it hasn't made a decision about whether to TPO or to agree to the works. It might be possible to say that it is not trying to stop the works and is merely being helpful by flagging up the possible breach of Forestry Act controls. Or it might just be hoping to see restocking secured through a FL. The following generalities can be stated, though (for England). 1. In TPOs a Council consent does not remove the need for a FL. A FL application will result in either (i) mandatory consultation with the Council and, if objected to but otherwise the FC would grant it, will be referred to the relevant Minister to be dealt with under Planning legislation or (ii) referral of the FL application to the Council to be dealt with under Planning legislation. Any consent arising does not require a FL. Thus, a TPO consent only trumps a FL requirement when it has been granted following a FL application. Just to be clear, a TPO consent obtained by direct application to the Council does not trump the need for a FL. 2. In CAs a Council agreement or inaction on a notification does not remove the need for a FL. A FL application does not have to result in consultation with the Council. If a FL is granted no CA notification is required. The absurdity seems then to be that a FL in a CA could be granted in a way that would deny the Council the option of protecting the trees with a TPO. And the strange possibility that we have here that a CA go-ahead can only be implemented without a separate FL at 5 cube a quarter and then must stop after 2 years. And a TPO consent can be obtained but could still need a FL or have to be implemented at 5 cube a quarter (indefinitely).

I just realised it might be legally correct to implement the CA notice but only at 5 cube a quarter and then stop after 2 years, but I wouldn't recommend it without fully considered legal advice.

The FC appears to be wrong about this. The 2012 TPO Regs also cover CAs and are clear - "15.—(1) Section 211(a) (preservation of trees in conservation areas) shall not apply to ... (b) the cutting down of a tree in accordance with a felling licence granted by the Forestry Commissioners under Part II of the Forestry Act 1967 (Commissioners’ power to control felling of trees);"

There's no such thing as validation of a CA notice, but if my reading of the situation is correct then it has highlighted a bit of a condradiction to the normal rule that there are only 3 things a Council can do in response to a CA notice (make a TPO, agree to the works or let 6 weeks elapse), your Council believes it can also indicate that a felling license is required. This is not really a rule though, it is an informal process. Strictly speaking the notice may well have been valid and the Council (in not making a TPO) has authorised the works by default but since they can't be carried out without breaching Forestry Act rules (i.e. felling without license or exemption) you're not in the clear. So when you apply for a License the FC will consult with the LPA (and here's where it gets murky in England) the LPA could tell the FC that the trees are important for the amenity of the area and the FC would then probably refuse the license. The Council could then make a TPO. Or not. Where would that leave things? It would feel like a TPO even without a TPO. You could notify the removal of just enough trees that you could fell them quarterly for 2 years without the need for a FL. At that point the LPA could make a TPO. Or might not. Who knows? So, either re-notify a smaller amount or go for a FL and let it be decided between the Council and the FC. But notifying a smaller amount could trigger a TPO anyway because the LPA would have grounds to believe tha there was underlying intention to remove more, which would come within its 'expediency' test. The authority of the FC in England is seriously questionable as it is unelected and makes decisions based on unstated criteria. This is why a wondered where you are based, as in Scotland where I am the law is very different and the criteria are stated in primary legislation, making accountability and appeal routes much clearer. Also our citeria include amenity-type considerations.

It occurs to me that the Commission has spent decades, possibly aslmost a century, experimenting with various species and situations to get the optimum yield for timber. The end goal is maximum dried wood per area. As already said, dried wood and carbon content might be in proportion to each other. I'd be amazed if there isn't published research into this. The focus of tree planting may be changing from timber to carbon sequestration but the research would still be valid.

Carbon is stored mainly as cellulose, lignin and less permanently as starch. So, dried wood density is a rough measure of carbon storage. Density is a product of growing conditions and species. It might not be a simple as carbon is proportional to cross sectional area. There might be an adjustment to be made from overbark DBH to overwood diameter. It sounds like yield figures might be more useful too, becasue they will indicate biomass. Forced dense forestry produces tall poles with little side growth, and these may have the same DBH as an open grown tree of half the height and less biomass.

Possibly straightforward enough. 5 cube a quarter is 40 cube in 2 years. A CA notification that hasn't resulted in a TPO has 2 years' duration. So perhaps this is a situation where there is so much timber being removed in the notification that it can't possibly be removed within 2 years without a felling license. So maybe the Council does not want to leave you with the impression that CA notification exempts you. Thereafter it depends on what country you are in. Don't people put their location in their Arbtalk profile any more?

I'll check the wording, as I've only ever used it for individual open grown trees. For forestry trees there is a massive database at Forestry Scotland for just about every species of forestry tree in every possible permutation of soil types and climate. I wsa gobsmacked when I found it. It even has a sort of calculator where you put in species, location, slope, soil type etc and it gives you stand yield info which with a bit of jiggery pokery can give average individual tree sizes.

Isn't it the ethanol content that degrades rubberised components such as diaphragms and pipes?

That's a new one on me thanks for mentioning it. I will investigate distribution in Scotland.

Have a look for the Forestry Commission publication by John Whyte, it gives annual growth increments for several species in a variety of growing conditions. It gets complicated as trees get older, but initially it's just a simple multiplication. If you can't find it let me know.

The second picture shows the surface root of a Holly that has grown across the butress and is now conflicting with the Sycamore (and winning) and there is a single shelf-like bracket on the bottom side of the impaction.

Thanks. Could be. Association suggests gibbosa but I always thought it had oval or elongate pores, this one has round pores. I can't think what else it can be though.

Can anyone help ID this, found at the base of a Sycamore which in all other respects loked fine.

Too fuzzy to ID

I was commenting on all 3 of your posts, just saying rock and tree climbing are on different bases. Fall factors are a rating for ropes, not anchors or climbers. I suppose another key difference is that in tree work the rope length can never be more than twice the height above last anchor, whereas in rock climbing you can be way way above last anchor. So far sometimes tha teh amout of rope out i a good deal more than the distance to the groundI remember a climb in Skye where I was a full 50 metres out, my last runner had pulled out as I passed it and I was 40 metres above my last runner. I was having kittens. Just made the belay ledge.

From what I can gather of this case, it was a judicial review or challenge of the Council's decision that the honeydew was not a statutory nuisance. More specifically, the nuisance claimed was that the honeydew and resulting sooty mould was prejudicial to the health of the occupants of the thatched cottage (the thatch supposedly harbouring the sooty mould spores that caused respiratory problems). I agree people seize too readily on cases as proving generalities, whereas it is the other way around, the law looks to apply generalities to specific situations and if we are lucky clarifies the generalities of the law. And so some of the useful principles of tree-related law come from places like Donoghue v Stevenson (about ginger beer) and Rylands v Fletcher (flooded mines). All that the Test Valley case did was clarify that a statutory nuisance based on 'prejudicial to health' has to be prejudicial to the average person. This is consistent with the principle that actions and inactions towards others expect us only to anticipate normal situations. Statutory nuisance has specific classes, and none of them involve dirtying cars with sooty moulds. There seems to be no prospect of a case succeeding based on sooty moulds causing inconvenience or damage. There was a case in 1985 (Wivenhoe Port), concerned with statutory nuisance interference with personal comfort, where the judge stated that "dust falling on motor cars may cause inconvenience to their owners; it may even diminish the value of their motor car, but this would not be a statutory nuisance." Common law nuisance, now that's a slightly different matter, bound only by broad principles of deprivaion of right to enjoy property.

I imagine the effect on your intetrnal organs of a straight vertical drop and sudden stop in a harness would be something like being in a car crash at 30mph wearing a seatbelt. i.e survivable but not good for you and with little margin for error. And as with car crashes, falls and sudden stops could cause disastrous skeletal damage, and then there's ligaments, tendons, cartilage... brain damage. It's nothing like jumping off a sofa. Paratroopers can arrest falls on landing becasue they're ready for it and trained to absorb the energy in ways that doesn't cause damage to them. Not the same as taking it all through your pelvis and base of spine in a fraction of a second, unprepared, sideways. The limit of 500mm might seem silly, but it's probably only half of what would certainly **************** you right up, and there can't be many people around who would vouch for it being silly, after having experienced it.

4kN to 5kN force on an anchor point is the same as hanging a 400-500kg weight off it. When selecting an anchor one should maybe try and imagine if you could hoist 1/2 a tonne up on it slowly.

You can't compare rock climbing to tree work. Rock climnbing ropes are for fall arrest, tree work ropes are for work positioning. The former have to elongate to absorb the fall, the latter have to be almost non-elastic so that you can climb the rope and then be stationary while cutting etc.

Can't be arsed with this thread since woodnicer couln't be arsed even to say what country he/she is in.