daltontrees

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.

You won't get very far reporting BS surveys without something that allows CAD layers to be generated and manipulated. Even if you bluff it for a bit a few jobs in teh architect will ask you to send the constraints to them as a CAD file. Risk surveys really just need to show where the trees are ut BS surveys need to protray them. I use PT Mapper with Pocket GIS, it (PTM) really bursts my head sometimes but I must have done 300 paid-for reports wiht this combo by now so the investment was well worth it. Just be ready to swear at it a lot. I'm still using a couple of Trimble Geos and a Juno but it is all available on android now. I have an averson to Android which people will appreciate on the first rainy survey. I have used the Geos in torrential rain and even dropped one of the Geos in a river and it didn't seem bothered. On the other hand there are free QGIS apps for making up survey templates and they can be exported as csvs and shape files so if you have hours to spare and a temporary swearing amnesty you could do it all without buying any software as long as you have a CAD application. I don't think free QCAD is quite up to it.

I love this, absolutely love it. The tax bulletin is hilarious. I would have piad your parking charges for a WHOLE DAY to have sat in on that. And I wouldn't even have claimed the tax on it. 😀😀😀💩🤡💥

CS31 is (or was) small tree felling.

I'd suggest you do CS30/31 because it will make you much more useful than other branch draggers and you will get more work, especially with more responsible companies. You will also be able to use saws for your firewood. But the important bit is that almost any ticket training introduces you to the same key H&S aspects that turn up in all of them and will give good insight and condition your mind to how the industry is (or should be) organised. And there's a lot to be said for learning to strip a saw down and put it back together. I did it after working in offices for decades, and it makes you feel human again. You should expect payment too, and there's almost always wood being chucked out that's available for free. But volunteering might get your foot in the door to start with and give you an idea of whether the reality of hard graft in the rain doesn't supplant the nice notion of working outdoors.

But VTA is checking for symptoms of defects (step 1), confirming defect presence (step 2) and assessing strength of remainder (step 3). That's a lot to fit into an acronym butchered as a verb 🤯. We know about 1 and 2, do you mean do step 3? It still won't give a likelihood of failure.

What is VTAing?

BS 5837 says diameter is to be stated in mm, rounded to nearest 10. Otherwise use whatever units you want. Our american cousings rather primitively use feet and inches and so if they measure the diameter in inches they just have to use a RPAr of that number in feet. I don't understand your second question.

I don't know if anyone has said it yet, byut Liriodendron is in the Magnoliacea family, all insect pollinated and therfore producers of very few but large pollen compared with wind pollinators like Betulacea or Pinaceae which just chuck out zillions of fine pollen. I expect a few birch or pine 100 m away would be more asthma-inducing than a Tulip overhanging the property.

RPA is an area in metres squared. I expect what you mean is the RPA radius (RPAr) in metres. Diameter tapes actually measure the circumference in units of Pi. If R is the RPA radius, it equals 12 x diameter. Circumference C = Diameter x Pi. Rearrange and solve for R R = 3.8 x C. The NJUG guidance rounds this up to 4. So basically unsophisticated workies just need to wrap a rope around tree stem and go out 4 lengths of that and do a circle round the tree. No tape required. Or if you insist in converting circumference to diameter, measure circumference in metres with normal tape, divide by 3.14 to get diameter, then multiply by 12 to get RPAr.

Probably P. amurense

I'm going to guess at Phellodendron. Not sure which though.

I wouldn't say 'entirely'. There is some evidence of flowering, and I have definitely seen cones on what I thought was Haggerston Grey, This is backed up in the Collin guide I think.

Gave an on-site preliminary prognosis and a written report with colour pictures and a summary description.

The consultant was able to do another tree for someone else nearby on the same trip. The test took 1/2 hour. Don't know how long the report took. But I imagine all-in he got £500 for 2 hours work and 4 hours in a car. And that's cheap? I'm in the wrong line of business.

No-one will rent you a tomograph. Increment borers will cost about £150, easy to use but easy to introduce decay if not done carefully. Quantification of strength of wood would require a fractometer. I just use a shake test. I have never used a resistograph, don't plan to either, I'd have one if it was cheap. But even second-hand they are dear. Sorbus International has prices.

I got a wellingtonia done a couple of years ago, the consultant had a 4 hour round trip to get there and it cost £250.

Just to add, the absence of any contradiction to my diatribe about the rights of encroached owners to cut back to the boundary almost regardless of the consequences for the tree isn't proof that I'm right but there's no argument that the tree owner has any right to keep any part of its tree in or over a neighbour's property so I would have no fear in recommending to a client or a customer that they can cut back to the boundary. Tree owners threatening legal action for damage to the tree can go and do one, as the polite version of the crude sentiment puts it.

For a TO your attitude is refreshing, but they all seem skint and stretched to the point of it being impossible for them to do things or get things done properly. The issue in this post is that the Council is withholding access as a means of trying to get the affected owner to do less work than they are legally entitled to do. That's a really shit stance. Had that council the resources, it could discuss and agree a slightly reduced spec in return for getting to do the work in a way that won't destroy the tree. The difference is probably the cost of a tree squad for a day. Our local Council tree team would be bankrupt if it had to do that even once a month. The typical compromise is 'yes our tree is encroaching but we haven't the resources to cut it back for you but you can do it at your own expense, please try and do it nicely.' To be honest that's not that atypical between adjacent private landowners anyway.

Drilling into wet wood will use up a battery in no time. I remember using up a battery on one hole. The secret is to use an augering bit.

Officially it is an offence to wilfully damage a TPO'd tree. It's a strange concept, requiring both damage and the intention to cause it, or in some interpretations the infliction of damage that is foreseeable and avoidable even if the intent isn't malicious. However, a couple of bolts will inflict minimal damage and I'd be surprised if there was a public interest to be served in prosecuting it if it has been done sensitively and for a purpose (bird box) that indicates appreciation of the tree as an asset. The key would have to be the use of something non-toxic (stainless steel ideally) that allows the box to move as the tree puts on annual rings. S it will be desirable to stop the box rattling, the attachment needs to be firm. For me this has always meant three points of attachment. The bolts (definitely never nails) have to go into pre-drilled holes to avoid splitting and infection and need to be perfectly parallel. If they are all angled very slightly downwards into the stem the weight of the box will keep it snug to the tree but as the tree grows the box will be pushed out and slightly up. So the bolts need to have smooth exposed shanks or a sleeve of plastic pipe e.g. 15mm heating pipe. Even better is the plastic pipe inserts used with heating pipe. Perfection is those on threaded rod, which allows the fixings to be attached and then the box put on afterwards, and end-stop nylock nuts. Or you could use Arborbolts (Google it) almost proof of intention not to damage. Expensive, but not in the long term.

Cut out the middle man and go straight to the British Geological Survey maps. http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html?

I think you are confusing soils with ahrinkable clays.