daltontrees

Your first post on Arbtalk. Welcome. We don't have all the details so my advice would be to be very cautious. Technically the application that was made has not been approved, since the application didn't ask for consent for the works that the Council has said can take place. If anything it sounds like the Council has either made a mistake or has considered the situation and has concluded that some trees on the boundary most remain and that the Sycamore are more deserving. If it's the latter, felling the Hornbeams will reduce rather than increase the chance of getting approval for anything on the Sycamores. And you say the trees are shared. That legally is a rare situation but if one supposed consent covers all of them it can only be implemented with the agreement of all the owners.It may suit one owner to interpret the go-ahead as not in their best interests and they could veto its implementation. I'd advise against assuming it can be implemented in part without all owners agreeing, and to answer your questions, the Council could indeed withdraw the existing approval for the hornbeams if a new application to lift or fell the sycamores is submitted.

Have I inadvertently stumbled into the Arbtalk Facebollocks forum?

I'd take the owners' word for it, with a bit of a spell check. Phellodendron (possibly amurense) Cork Tree

Mountain Ash/Rowan is not an Ash and cannot be affected by ADB. ADB affects several species of Fraxinus, none immune so far but some with useful tolerance.

That pattern of racking of brickwork looks thermal to me. I can't see round conrers but I cannot imagine a scenario where it's subsidence or heave related. If I'm wrong, you can add to your list that the clay soils have to be shrinkable. not all clay soils are significantly shrinkable. Boulder clays notably aren't often shrinkable. Also add tha tthere has to be a climat ethat would resoult in persistent soil moisture deficits. Also add that the foundations need to be substandard in depth relative to modern standards. Also add the buiding needs to be within the zone of influence of the trees, with regard to species, size, age and water demand. I believe the estabished view is that gradual removal of trees will not reduce heave. If anything oyu could say you're better to do it in one go, experience the heave then make good. Slow recovery delays the time when you can safely do final repairs. And repairing too early follwng by seasonal movements can make the situation worse. As such, there's no best time.

Looks like Ash Bark Beetle Hylesinus varius.

This is a lovely informative and thought-provoking thread, and so far free from pathogenic postings. Long may it last. Some random observations. Walnut is a thoroughly antisocial tree, it enforces distancing by being allelopathic, poisoning the roots of anything near it including its own offspring. Granted, if the spacing could be worked out it could be planted in stands but it probably can't be an efficient use of land. Several years ago I got some Leylandii poles I had felled at a job, 40 foot and dead straight. I used it for fence posts, and 15 years on it has barely discoloured. It's an improbable choice for commercial planting but I can see it paying dividends. I have built my office out of Western Red, it has been mostly trouble-free and was a pleasure to work with. Another good candidate if it can be kept fork-free. Personally I dislike monoculture, and when given an opportunity to specify planting I usually alternate and mix to build in resilience and buffers against pathogen spread. I would even admit that it is insurance against poor planting choices too. In controllable urban settings some diversification into non-natives is a good thing provided it can be reversed if it goes badly wrong. What I see often is the inevitable consequences of obligatory mixed native planting, with predictable succession and climaxing interspersed with incompatible runts and failures. Poor choices are very often made. The theory is all well but a recent experience said it all for me, I was to specify replacements for a large housing site where lots of native trees were being removed. The ecologist and I wanted the existing mix to be emulated in the replanting scheme. Meantime the landscape architects, demonstrating a shameful lack of understanding, specified for the same client mostly inappropriate cultivars and species based on their looks. I can guarantee that about 60% won't see out 2 decades and 20% more will be detested by the residents within the same time (because of shading) and that the existent bird population will be entirely and almost permanently displaced. The planning officer was persuaded based on the landscape architect's reputation. So there you have it, the client didn't care, the landscape architect didn't understand and the planner didn't know better and voila another 25 acres of ailing urban sticks, empty planting pits and mullered skyscrapers, lost to nature.

Chicken of the Woods, Laetiporus sulfureus, common on Yew.

A couple more form the same site, Ganoderma at work on the underside of a fallen large Beech and Kretzschmaria on the side of it.

Nice Laetiporus on top of fallen (but still growing) old Sweet Chestnut. Unfortunately the light was poor.

Got to be Ganoderma, maybe adspersum?

What's going on, peeps? This is a Beech, of that there is no doubt whatsoever. It is common in woodland settings for them to develop fluted flared buttresses like that.

I did a survey for a large organisation a couple of years ago, a few thousand urban trees, updating a survey from 6 or 7 years before that by someone else. The organisation had in the meantime lost about 30% of its tree stock, mostly young and semi mature. The most common cause was strimming at the bases, the second most common was overpruning or pruning at the wrong time of year. Only a couple of percent had been windthrown, and all that died of pathogens could have this attributed to human damage. The best trees were in shrub beds.

That's my experience too. There's some good contractors who give good advice (including if appropriate doing nothing) for all the right reasons, but there's also a lot of chancers who hide behind the mystique of tree surgery to sell owners unnecessary and unwise tree work. Free verbal advice often isn't worth the paper it's written on.

I'm not particularly wound up. I won't be meeting up with Mr Evans any time soon, I've never met him, probably just as well because if he spoke to me face to face the way he does on here and UKTC it would end abruptly. Plus as he has demonstrated on here and UKTC he seems to be a bit of a creepy pervert, and if he came near me or my family I probably wouldn't stop to ask why he was there. To me he lacks the dignity to be an ambassador for our industry.

As I have told you repeatedly, I have no vested interest in QTRA. And this thread is about your VALID, not about QTRA or anything else, or me or anyone else. As I recall QTRA doesn't recommend a strategy for duty holders. You do.

I did a big survey for National Grid a couple of years ago, and there were quite a few in the stretch from Meifod to Lllanymynech. Don't know if that counts as north.

I've suspected it of doing that Poplar thing of popping up all round a recently felled tree. Is that your experience?

I've seen it big but usually multistemmed. I'm growing a few and it takes a bit of pruning in late spring to stop it turning into multistemmed. The biggest single stemmed one I've seen was about 350mm across.

As ever if you want to see the true Mr Evans all you have to do is question him. In saying - " if a Homeowner downloads VALID's Homeowner's Tree RIsk-Benefit Management Strategy, or an Arborist does, and uses is, then in the extraordinarily unlikely case of claim being made, the Claimant will also be looking at whether a claim can be made against VALID CIC as well. " the question remains unanswered, all it is saying is that someone relying on the Strategy, free or not, would consider claiming against VALID. Of course they would. It's not saying VALID accepts, or would accept, responsibility for deficiencies in the Strategy. And CIC stands for Community Interest Company, so there might be no assets against which to sue. Mr Evans, is the only Director. I'd suggest that anyone using the Strategy, or anyone else's for free, should appreciate they have to take legal responsibility for it. So make your own minds (or Strategies) up.

Looks more like Norway Maple.

Tree of Heaven is an invasive weed. Unless you like it and want lots more of it you would be well advised to get rid of it now.

For any Arbtalk members who aren't familiar with Mr Evan's style, you'll see soon enough that if anyone agrees with him he will be all pallsy with you, if you disagree he will attack you and if you ask difficult questions he won't answer them. A sort of Arb Trump. And here we go, here he is straight out of the blocks with insults and aggression. I'm not pursuing you Acer, you have only ever come on to Arbtalk to promote something, firstly QTRA and now your knock-off version of it. The waiving of copyright is a thinly disguised excuse for promotion and free advrtising, everyone sees that already. You have a defamation accusation and threat of legal action pending because you aren't man enough to apologise. Latterly you only ever went on to UKTC to promote VALID, and were eventually blocked. On the other hand I contribute freely on a number of tree matters. I'm not bothered if I'm the one that says what everyone else is thinking. I am not and never have been a promoter of QTRA. I use it with modifications that build on its solid foundations. This originated as a quantified system, and it now suits to align it to QTRA as an identifiable peer-reviewed system. It has occasional advantages over QTRA. I used and use the addition of logarithms, something you derided but later claimed was your idea, your epiphany. You're welcome. Regrdless of whether this particular VALID advert mentions the app, it does use terminology that is unique to VALID. One wouldn't get far seeing the strategy through without using the (paid-for) VALID training. The very thought that you have any altruistic motives is hilarious. Let's get straight to the point and see what worth there is in your free publications. You've so far avoided answering this plainly anywhere else. A strategy/policy/plan for risk assessment and management can take the tree owner from the position statement and documents of the National Tree Safety Group to individual risk assessment and management, and as I see it your publications are your personal interpretation of what a tree owner needs to do to meet their duty of care. Do you accept responsibility if a tree owner adopts your strategy/policy/plans and is found negligent on the basis of inadequate policy? It doen't matter that they are 'free'. See if you can break the habit of a lifetime and give a straight answer without resorting to insults and digression. Arbtalk is a place for sharing views and experiences, not trading insults.

Just on the generality of there being a free Tree Risk Management Strategy/Plan/Policy, the use of the policy rests on the adoption of the VALID risk assessment method, which in turn rests on using the app. The app is free but Mr Evans stated on UKTC that it would be dangerous to use it without the training. Which is definitely not free. There may be use in a free policy that could be used with any risk assessment system (VALID/QTRA/TRAQ etc.) but you could not use the VALID policy with any published method.

The appeal was only challenge to the judge’s findings of fact and evaluation of the evidence. It was not a challenge to whether the right witnesses had been called or whether the sides had argued their cases better or worse than the other. I've been involved in a few cases where one side has failed to pick up on points or to present the right evidence and has lost the case partly (or wholly) as a result. You get what you pay for. I can't be bothered getting into the minutae of the evidence, it's water under the bridge now. The useful bit about the appeal is that it was taken as read that the original judge had applied the correct legal principles of tree owner's duty of care for negligence cases. These were quoted from the Stagecoach case as - (a) The owner of a tree owes a duty to act as a reasonable and prudent landowner; (b) Such a duty must not amount to an unreasonable burden or force the landowner to act as the insurer of nature. But he has a duty to act where there is a danger which is apparent to him and which he can see with his own eyes; (c) A reasonable and prudent landowner should carry out preliminary/informal inspections or observations on a regular basis; (d) In certain circumstances, the landowner should arrange for fuller inspections by arboriculturalists. This will usually be because preliminary/informal inspections or observations have revealed a potential problem, although it could also arise because of a lack of knowledge or capacity on the part of the landowner to carry out preliminary/informal inspections. A general approach that requires a close/formal inspection only if there is some form of ‘trigger’ is also in accordance with the published guidance referred to in paragraphs 53-55 above. (e) The resources available to the householder may have a relevance to the way in which the duty is discharged. The mention of 'insurer of nature' is useful. That's the bit where you don't ahve to foresee harm or damage in freak weather conditions. I was involved in a thread on here a few months ago in which this was discussed, and I had reached the conclusion that a good defensible position was to adopt the design wind speeds that building designers adopt for sites, from BS 6399-2: 1997 Loading for buildings — Part 2: Code of practice for wind loads. It's really important in a risk survey report to let a client know the limitations of the assessment, and the best way to do that in my opinion is to express the 'insurer of nature' limitation in a suitable form of words. This is not to cover the consultants a&$£ but to cover the client's, and spare him the expense of unnecessary risk reduction works. And it's slightly different to saying freak weather risks can't be quantified, it's saying they don't need to be.