daltontrees

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.

I have to say I have looked long and hard for years (and I am a total anorak about case law) and I have never been able to find anything that says there is a duty not to cause harm to the tree. Excessive harm is a different concept, it implies, well, excess. I'd be delighted if ANYONE can send me case law from any era or any UK or commonwealth country saying anything other than the basic Lemmon v Webb thing of having unrestricted right to cut back to the boundary (barring TPO's of course, they have the effect of taking away rights). I make one proviso to that, as was quoted in an irish case from 1927 and is quoted by Dr. Mynors in his book on tree law "where there are two ways of abating a nuisance, the less mischevious is to be followed". This is cited in subsequent cases, some of which involve accusations of criminal damage such as knocking down encroaching walls, and where the law suggests that unless there is urgency or simplicity in the self-abatement the proper approach is raising a legal action of nuisance. Even at that, the abater is within rights to weigh up the delay and costs of a legal action in deciding whther to exercise self-abatement. It's not perfectly simple but it's not as complicated as having to protect the tree that is stealing your light, airspace, soil nutrients etc. Grrrr!

Parts of W Sussex have shrinkable clays, parts have none. I'd look into that first to see if subsidence risk is significant. If it is and a Tulip Tree is coming out (low water demand) I'd want to get a low water demand tree in (such as birch). I don't know the water demand of Liquidambar. The zone of influence of Tulip is half as much again as birch. Personally I like birch, the shade is not intense. If it's north of the house the prevailing weather should take care of leaves and seeds for you. I'd be thinking about neighbours who might be north of the tree, so they'd prefer birch in the long run for light. In the short term Liquidambar doesn't seem to amount to much height-wise but they get very big eventually. The TDAG guide says Liquidambar is not suitable for coastal locations or small gardens and is only moderatley tolerant of drought. It says the same about birch but has it as sensitive to drought. All that said, based almost purely on crown density, I'd still go with birch and hope it a naturally stunted life. I'd not be much bothered about subsidence unless neighbouring buildings are closer. If anything, heave is worth considering.

Where in the country are you? What direction is the tree to be from the house?

That is a shocking encroachment. I can't imagine many people tolerating it. I would suggest that you advise the customer to have the tree reduced on their side without involving the Council, but not right back to the boundary. I would suggest the amount of reduction be determined by 4 things 1. not enough reduction to kill the tree 2. not enough to destabilise the tree 3. not enough to significantly diminish the contribution the tree makes to public amenity 4. enough to satisfy the customer's wish for light and prospect Let the customer decide how much reduction. Then price it. If you get the job, advise the customer take the hit on not offering the brash to the Council. It's wrong, but there will be no hit. Negotiating access will only benefit by the price difference between easy access and tricky access. It will benefit the Council only by avoiding a TPO to protect public amenity. Hence test 3 and to a lesser extent test 1 and 2.

I am glad that you recognise that there can be nuisance without damage. At least we can discuss this issue now in the current century. The important thing about the Network Rail judgement is that it's a statement of the law of nuisance, not a statement of the law of nuisance as it related to Knotweed. It was a conscious decision by the MR to make a modern statement that can be applied to and cited in ANY nuisance case. Tree people seem to be guilty of being unable to assimilate non-tree cases into their understanding of the law, whereas the law has no difficulty in applying the generalities of the law to tree cases. I honestly don't see the problem of interpretation. Light is a natural riught. A neighbour's tree is encroachign and depriving you of that natural right. You can abate (Lemmon v Webb). You can if it is severe enough force the neighbour to abate (Halkerston v Wedderburn). The TPO legislation says not only that you can abate but you can prevent, suggesting a pretty low threshold. I have advised clients that they can self-abate in TPO and CA situations. That's not risky, that's the professional thing to do because my duty is not to trees but to people and if they have rights they should know it and know that they can assert them. Difficult to defend? I don't think so. Difficult to prosecute, yes.

It's probably an uncomfortable truth for TOs. Dr. Mynors advocates the idea that the TPO exemptions such as nuisance abatement are necessary to avoid a tree owner being in a situation where he is in negligence at common law but cannot remedy it because of a TPO. That is intuitively correct and in a civilised society cannot be any other way.

Well since we're being blunt, I have to say that you are wrong. But don't take my word for it, the law was stated in modern terms by the Master of the Rolls in 2018 in Network Rail v Willians and Waistell. "... although nuisance is sometimes broken down into different categories, these are merely examples of a violation of property rights as I have described them. In Hunter at 695C, for example, Lord Lloyd said that nuisances are of three kinds: (1) nuisance by encroachment on a neighbour’s land, (2) nuisance by direct physical injury to a neighbour’s land; and (3) nuisance by interference with a neighbour’s quiet enjoyment of his land. The difficulty with any rigid categorisation is that it may not easily accommodate possible examples of nuisance in new social conditions or may undermine a proper analysis of factual situations which have aspects of more than one category but do not fall squarely within any one category, having regard to existing case law." "... the frequently stated proposition that damage is always an essential requirement of the cause of action for nuisance because nuisance is derived from the old form of action on the case must be treated with considerable caution. As to the proposition, see, for example, Lemmon v Webb [1894] 3 Ch 1, 11, 21, 24; Davey v Harrow Corporation [1958] 1 QB 60, 71; Hunter at 695D; and Delaware Mansions Ltd v Westminster City Council [2001] UKHL 55, [2002] 1 AC 321, [15] and [33]. It is clear both that this proposition is not entirely correct and also that the concept of damage in this context is a highly elastic one." "It is also well established that, in the case of nuisance through interference with the amenity of the claimant’s land, physical damage is not necessary to complete the cause of action.". and later in the written judgement... "Provided, by reference to all the circumstances of the case and the character of the locality, and according to the objective standards of the average person, the interference with amenity is sufficiently serious, there will be an actionable private nuisance." Or, in short, nuisance is not damage, it's interference with property rights. One of those rights is light. Another is the right not to have your property damaged. Break free of the tyrranical misconception created by Lemmon v Webb and driven into the head of every arb student. There does NOT need to be damage for an action in nuisance to succeed. And so, if it's actionable, it can be done under exemption in a CA or TPO situation. It's not me that's right, it's the Master of the Rolls and he's the highest civil law authority in the commonwealth. There's even a reported case in the Court of Session in 1781 where nuisance by light blockage was actionable. One more time - There does NOT need to be damage for an action in nuisance to succeed. It's the law.

There's a superficial similarity between Cercis and Cercidiphyllum. But as the name of the latter suggests it has two (di) leaves(phyllum). Your picture has diretly opposite pairs, as with Cercidiphyllum. If you ever see a Cercis you'll appreciate that the leaves are alternate (left-right-left) on the twig.