daltontrees

The generality of that is true, although I don't see how you can tell the prevailing wind direction from the pics. But it's a tiny tree, can't be much in the way of risk or lever arm. These decisions should always be situation-specific. Generally I am in the 'leave the poor bloody tree alone' camp. Reducing height redistributes growth hormones, can result in overextension of limbs and longer term problems. Especially if there are other inclusion forks.

Published research is that roots can't crush and break pipes. They may be present alongside pipes if root penetration in the trenchfill is easier than adjacent ground. But they still shouldn't be growing preferentially beside a pipe unless it is leaking and giving them a steady supply of water and (erm) nutrients. I had to research and report last year on the resistance of a pipe to crushing by roots in contact with it. The strength of a circular intact pipe is phenomenal, much greater than the pressure exerted by roots in contact. And if the root contact was right on a joint? I think the fill material around the joint would need to be very loose for displacement to take place. But I suppose it would be possible for very short sections of pipe with filled joints (not push-fit modern ones.

Yes leave the wound alone. Trees have evolved to cope with breakages, the tree knows best. Apart from paring the torn bark back I'd do nothing else. Reduction would remove capacity for the tree to heal the wound. Wind loads will have been present before breakage and the tree should already have strength in response to the loads. Wind flexure stimulates woundwood. Reduction will slow that down. The pictures show adaptive growth already, the branch failure looks (with hindsight) like it was inevitable and the tree is already coping. Let nature do its thing. Potions and concoctions will interfere with optimum natural processes.

Thanks this is a useful and important point. Drains and sewers if properly constructed shouldn't allow roots to enter and the tree owner's liability for blockage should be limited or negated. There's a couple of other ways to look at this issue. Firstly a sewer that allows roots to enter will allow sewage to escape. That's a problem of the sewer's owner. Second way of looking at it is, should a tree owner be expected to foresee that a neighbour's sewer will be badly constructed? I don't think so, the law could not operate if this principle was applied. I'd even go as far as to say a tree owner is entitled to assume that a sewer is properly constructed.

In the search for the perfect yielding poplar the powers that be have literally tried every possible cross permutation of poplar species.Individuals are often clones, with no individual character. For me, differentiating between them is an occasional academic pursuit but since I rarely feel sure of an ID I have never managed to catalogue the correct management repertoire for each. The overview is that the only good poplar is a dead poplar, or possible the kind that is quite far away from any thing or anyone. Snappy, stinky prolific uncontrollable freaks, on the whole. Sorry, can't hep with any recommendations.

Just trying to avoid the ambiguity of common names. but yes, black. I don't want to anger the villagers.

Looks like a genuine nigra.

The tree owner NEVER gains a right to have roots or branches in a neighbour's soil or airspace. You are correct the roots and branches can be cut back to the boundary with impunity. You are also correct to foresee possible failure of the tree and to give the tree owner fair warning to foresee it too and to prepare for the possibility of it after pruning. The law expects reasonable behaviour. Without warning the tree owner, the tree could fail after pruning and either harm or damage the tree owner's property or the neighbour's. In the former case the pruner would be liable. In the latter case the tree owner would have a defence against negligence. Giving warning removes both these liabilities and defences. As for the tree declining after pruning, well what right does the tree owner have to take the neighbour's soil nutrients, water and light and to have a tree's viability depend on these? None. The law on this has been clear for centuries. If I was you I'd steer clear of using 'nuisance' or 'trespass', as they can be highly contentious terms. Trees do not trespass, they encroach. Nuisance is more than encroachment, and is not the same as annoyance.

What?

No-one can answer the question unless you say what country you are in.

probably Robinia pseudoacacia

Where there is a wound liek a tear-out or a pruning cut, the idealised circular cross section of a stem or branch has been compromised and there is localised stress around the wound, leading to reaction wood which is also ultimately CODIT wall 4 too. There may therefore be flexure alternating between tension and compression, whether it's gymnosperm or angiosperm. It's always worth taking a load of slices through an occluded wound and noting the ring history of woundwood and the colour/density of the early and late wood. I'm still winging it, still haven't time to look up the full answer.

Native and a key ancient woodland indicator species.

I'm all in favour of anyhting other than the knee-jerk reaction of felling/pruning which you'll mostly get on a site for people who make their living off felling, pruning and firewood. In this case it would only be appropriate I think if compaction was already part of the problem, nad een then (as in all cases) if the tree benefits (over remaining life expectancy) outweighed the cost.

Looks like Bird Cherry Prunus padus

Wherever wood is on a tree, its make up is partly a localised stress, and so may vary in compressive or tensile strength and annual increment by proportions of lignin, cellulose and cell numbers and density. There are probably some simple linear relationships between stress and these components. In conifers the overall effect seems to be more wood and lignin rich, but in broadleaf denser wood with more cellulose. I should look this up to verify it but I haven't the time.

Defo Guelder Rose.

Why the extravagance when an upside down traffic cone would do the job?

They do a bib and brace version too £40 Hydrowear HYD072355 Uden Sns Waterproof Bib & Brace - Waterproof Work Overtrousers - Working Waterproofs - Workwear - Best Workwear WWW.BESTWORKWEAR.CO.UK Waterproof/breathable bib & brace in SNS fabric I am so fed up with getting wet with sweat in cheap waterproof trousers.

I have tried Ivy 'Glacier' which trails nicely but need a lot more water than it normally gets in a hanging basket. If it's a tree you're after, Rowan is a great opportunist and if you want to show off go for a Joseph Rock. Birch too, Ive seen it settle down nicely in stumps, I saw one last year that was left standing on 2' high legs long after the stump was gone. A mixture of Lathyrus (Sweet Pea) will trail nicely and has the advantage of being leguminous and will produce its own nitrates in what will otherwise be a limited soil. Quite brief flowering though. There's some nice trailing Fuchsias but they can be useless without occasional watering. Might be worth boring the stem right through to the cavity in a few places too, a fern on top might not be wet enough but on the stem could do well. You'd need to tamp in bags and bags of mulch like a cannon to get a self-sustaining soggy substrate. An alliterative success but otherwise a bit experimental.

The 'twice the load' idea in most rigging situations is a myth. The pulley in rigging is being used for a change in direction, not to create a mechanical advantage. That is the case with static and dynamic situations.

Yes ultimately no responsibility. Crap, isn't it? But as the fibbing applicant exposes himself to delays, objections and possible rejection of application, there's still an onus to be honest.

But ask yourself this. Given that the planner is duty bound to check on all planning policies and material considerations for any application, does he see the 'no' box ticked and think 'I don't need to check for TPOs then'? And another question, when he sees the box ticked, does he decide to conduct the site visit with some sideways blinkers on that ensure he cannot see any trees? Really, what is the point of the question on the form? It could only result in prosecution if the planner HAS to rely on the answer.

Similar in principle to the Zeppelin Bend you can see the b and q in it. Unfortunately it could collapse without tying the ends down. For the same reason it might be fairly easy to untie after loading.

Standard stuff.