daltontrees

Thanks for explanations everybody, Head-spinning stuff. I agree the new rules seem to be on a 'wet' basis. The 'wet' basis is the most intuitive one I think as it doesn't re;ly on knowing the hypothetical oven dry weight, the important bit being how much drier is it than the green weight. Or in words, the wet basis is now much of the log is water. The dry basis is how much heavier is it because of water content. Dry basis could be a useful indication of re-humidification. Ther's no doubt that wet basis is most obvious measure of how much the wood has been dried from green. PAUSE FOR THOUGHT The electrical resistasnce of bone dry wood is high. Compared to wet it is very high. I think that effectively conductivity is very nearly proportional to free moisture content. I don't know how meters can automatically calibrate to measure dry weight %, whereas wet weight % would require no calibration. basically a resistance meter.

It's a bit of a trek up there even from Glasgow, but I might give the guy a call tomorrow if he's stuck.

I have just read the whole thread and am none the wiser. No-one has explained what the difference is between wet and dry basis. Can someone spell it out please?

Meters don't meassure moisture content, they measure electrical conmductivity, and the display convertts this to a moisture content. Conductivity increases with moisture content and temperature. So strictly speaking all moisture statements should be followed by "(measured at X degrees)" or should be normalised to some standard temperature.. My old Protimeter had a chart for adjusting values for temperature.

Informative, thanks. Uptake if this service would be for me based on cost. It's a hard thing to specify but how much does iot cost to survey and report on a tree?

The legislation on CA notifications is almost unbelievably wide open tointerpretation (and abuse). The written notice needs merely to define 'the act' in some way. It needs to be an 'act' that could be prohibited by TPO. Not surprisingly, therefore, the CA exemptions are the same as TPO exemptions with a few additional ones. If you notify and the Council can't possible know from your descrition of the 'act' what you plan to do and wha the effect on amenity and the tree's vitality they should reject the notice rather than try and stop the work by making a TPO. They might tolerate a sloppy definition if the tree isn't that important. But there can't be any complaint about a rejection if the description is wooly and can't be checked afterwards. The best service to a customer or client is to describe the works properly, including finished dimensions, so that the Council has no reason to reject. It's all very well saying the Council can only TPO a notified tree but if the notice is invalid from uncertainty a prosecution could ensue. I had this situation during the week where an insufficiently described notification (by the client, not me) was not rejected until a few weeks after the 6 weeks. There comes a point where you have to say that if the Councl doesn't reject it within 6 weeks it probably hasn't looked at it and the prosecution is time-barred. After all, for it to be rejected all the TO or planner has to do is look at the description and decide if it is (a) unambiguous and (b) check-able afterwards. There's a lot more to be considered as to whether the tree should be TPO'd but that is not a rejection matter. Read a notification as if you have never seen the tree. If it's not clear to you what it means, it could be rejected. Tighten up the definition, and state checkable finished dimensions.

A major difference between CA notification and TPO application is that the latter has to give a reason for the proposed works.

almost certainly Bhutan Pine Pinus wallichiana

Remains of a male cone then. Those can't be seeds, just scales.

Are you sure it is from a tree?

Totally agree.😄

A friend and I got chucked out of Pollok Park in Glasgow for climbing trees. Council said it had been advised that if there were defects in the trees and we got hurt it would be liable. So rather than assess every tree it didn't allow any to be climbed. So we went to Kings Park where there was no rangers. The right to roam Acces Code says access rights extend to climbing, but I'm pretty sure it anticipates only rock climbing. If you don't use spikes and you use a cambium saver for descents I don't really see the problem.

Rarely it can be stated by Planning that a site cannot be developed because the tress will not allow for adequate daylight. In effect not forcing removal (the Council never has the power to do that) but saying if you want permission the trees have to go. Species would not be an issue, but evergreen could be because of winter daylighting.

the stain in the cut end says willow, so does the bark, adn I'd guess from the general form of teh pieces tha they were all stems from a typical multistemmed willow scenario. Willow is watery but it can be plenty heavy to start with.

goat willow for me.

Take 2, no way this is Plum.

I'm going to disagree with everyone. The habit of the trees in the picture is exactly what you get with early mature whitbeam,, multistemmed dense almost fastigiate symmetrical, rapidly tapering stem, orange wood. I have never ever seen a cherry do that, and I believe I never will. As has been said, no lenticel bands, instead the rough bark you would associate with whitebeam close to compression forks, becoming smooth away from these. One bud or leaf would resolve the mmystery, but if OP is relying on the logs beign cherry, better check because I really really don't think these are. Right Family (Rosaceae) though.

I would indeed class this alongside bird poo and leaf fall. And Chalara and Phytophtora, And squirrels. Having the trees might inevitably result in inconvenience to, or even harm to adjacent property but it can't be controlled by the tree owner and removing the tree would be a disproportionate response that the law would not expect of anyone. However, aphids could contribute to nuisance from encroaching branches and I can see it being mentioned in an action. I would expect a court to dismiss it as de minimis if it was the only reason for the action. And after all, in a slight breeze these effects can cross a property boundary, so honeydew can affect a neighbour without any encroachment. I haven't seen relevant case in scots law but there are the same principles in english common law and commonwealth law where pests and the like are seen as wild things of nature over which no-one has control and for which no-one (generally) has responsibility.

Let's be absolutely clear here. Councils can't set their own rules locally for TPOs. There is national statute and that is all. The Act allows 'trees' to be protected. Not stuff on trees, not shrubs, not ivy, not birds sitting on trees, not fairies living inside trees or inside the head of tree officers. If a tree is damaged while removing ivy, that is an offence. How the f*** does the Council think it can consent ivy removal? By allowing damage? I applaud it for wanting to be able to advise on and control ivy removal but it has NO right whatsoever to require applications and NO statutory power to grant approvals relating to ivy. There is no exemption for ivy remval because IVY IS NOT A TREE. Or as Sir Kevin says, you're dealing with an idiot.

I suppose I'll have to spell it out. The old version of the legislation used the word 'dangerous' but the new version says 'immediate risk of serious harm' It might amount to the same thing but as the guidance explains, the situation needs to be serious and immediate, which is a more precise way of stating it.

The 'dead and dangerous' thing is a relic from an older version of the legislation. Chris has stated it correctly. Many, many Councils try to regulate protected trees in ways that are not consistent with their obligations and the limitations of their powers. There's no excuse for it and I think that we and owners have a moral obligation to instil fair systems by pointing out Council failings every time we encounter them.

The Council is wrong. Climbing plants are never trees and can never be protected.

Cherry is best pruned in midsummer when its gum defences are most active. Any other time of the year risks infection to some or other degree.

No, nuisance can be encroachment, damge by roots, prevention of cultivation because of roots, branches touching buildings, and probably other categories I can't think of just now. But I would agree that the 'prevention' should probably be for immediate apprehension of damage or physical encroachment rather than visionary forward planning. See my previous comments about 'actionable', the gov website is being too literal about it and the law is not fully evolved yet. Just ponder if you would the contradiction, the gap. between actionable and preventable...

There's some iffy stuff being said here. Bottom line is that encroaching branches can be as much of a nuisance in the legal sense as rooots causing damage. There need be no damage, just prevention of someone's property rights. It seems plain enough that the OCuncil is mentioning nuisance as a preamble to clarifying that although there is a common law right of abating a nuisance there is no right to trespass to do so. So although the TPO works are consented the owner's consent would still be required for anything other than that which is allowed under common law too. There is absolutely NO WAY that this is indicating that TPO cosent was not required in the first place. Pause. Now, as has been said, TPO legislation does allow abatement of nuisance without TPO consent. It's not that simple, though. Case law suggests that the nuisance has to be quite serious, at a level known as 'actionable'. Actionable can be taken to mean at a level where a court would on application of the encroached party order a tree owner to abate the nuisance. Or possibly issue a declarator that the encroached party has the right to self-abatement i.e do it himself. I am adamant that the courts haven't got ot the bottom of this yet and that we will see refinements to the law. Some would argue that a TPO prevents a landowner doing what he wants to do with his own tree, and this also burdens anyone in its spread. That is to say it is the tree that is protected, not the land that the tree is on. But ultimately Dr. Mynors suggests that the exemption for abatement in a TPO nuisance situation is there to avoid a tree owner being obliged at common law to do something but prevented from doing so at statute. That is only fair. The failing of the 'actionable' threshold is tha the exemption also allows prevention of nuisance, which suggests in the plainest interpretation of that word that the nuisance doesn't need to be serious. In fact, it doesn't need to have happened yet. Summary to the OP, don't take the advisories to be proof that consent wasn't needed. It may not have been but it has been granted so why worry? And secondly tread very carefully in future situations. One might not need to take a Council's word for it that abatement or prevention is not exempted, but one needs to be bloody sure that the reasons for abatement are genuine and the works are proportionate and justifiable. And I would add, done professionally so as to demonstate no avoidable additional damage to the public amenity provided by the tree.