daltontrees

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.

This question was asked in parliament a few years ago. And here's the answer too. Apart form lies about ownership, there is no sanction. It;s a mini charter for interested parties to throw a spanner in the works, which is probably a good check on chancers. It doesn't deal with false information uncovered after approval though. QUESTION To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what sanctions may be imposed on persons who have made false statements or provided false evidence in a planning application. ANSWER The planning application process relies on people acting in good faith. There is an expectation that applicants and those representing them provide decision makers with true and accurate information upon which to base their decisions. However, under section 65(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, it is an offence to issue a false ownership certificate knowingly or recklessly. If a local planning authority feels that an application does not accurately or fully describe the proposed development, or that it is in any way misleading, it is entitled to ask the applicant to amend it or rectify any omissions before it agrees to process the application. Planning applications are publicised during the determination period so that any interested parties have the opportunity to comment. If any party considers that the application includes deliberately misleading information, or lacks important information that would be material to the decision, they should report this to the relevant local authority who will decide what, action is appropriate. Planning permission can be refused on the grounds that information provided was insufficient to accurately describe the nature and anticipated impacts of the proposed development.

Assuming you are in England. LAs have statutory power to revoke a planning consent. Usually results in compensation, but not necessarily. I expect it could only be done if the LA decided that with fresh knowledge of the trees the decision on the original application would have been a refusal. There would then be a blame game, and personally I am inclined to think that the onus would be on the Council to explain how it had not properly assessed the application including a site visit. In short, the tick box is pretty meaningless, and I've never come across any law that says that recklessly or carelessly or deliberately providing false information in an application invalidates an approval. I remember decades ago when I was a fresh faced trainee surveyor checking an application for a house plot and finding that the applicant had modified the ordnance survey plan to change the geometry of the main road so that unacceptable visibility splays appeared acceptable. I notified Planning and the application was refused. If I hadn't noticed, the visibility splays would have been checked using only the plan and it might have been approved. There's no real moral dilemma, the inadequate splays would I think have resulted one day in a RTA on a really bad bend.

And here it is with a reef knot.

Here's a double fishermans bracketed by a sheepshank. Possible, but I wouldn't want to do it up a tree in a gale with cold fingers.

I used an alpine butterfly on a rope that was being used to winch a tree over. Took me 10 minutes and a marlin spike to untie it. I can't picture the sheepshank bowline combo.