daltontrees

Done. Only took 2 minutes.

The replanting obligation runs with the land. The new owner would be liable. It would be a matter of contract whether the seller passed that obligation on to the new owner. If he didn't and was sneaky about it he might still be liable for the cost of complying with the replanting obligation. I expect your contract is with the previous owner and will not have been assigned to the new owner without your knowledge and agreement. Summary - owner for the time being is liable. You're probably out of the loop now.

Not quite a 'fact', there is no legal requirement for PII. But a consultant would be crazy not to have it. And any client who uses an uninsured consultant would be just as crazy.

If in doubt, yes. But what I'm saying is there will be cases where you don't need to notify and wait 6 weeks.

I'll be one of the plenty, but maybe not just on the interpretation of 'nuisance'. The relevant Regulation says "so far as may be necessary for the prevention or abatement of a nuisance". My dictionary says "prevent" means to stop happening", it's not just a synonym for "abate". So, depending on whether one thinks the "nuisance" has to be actionable, the Regulation either means 'prevent a nuisance becoming so bad that it's actionable' or it means 'prevent a nuisance'. Anyone can look long and hard for a definition of 'actionable' but there isn't one (although one is hinted at in Lemmon v Webb). It was adopted as a test for use of TPO exemptions in Smith v Oliver and Perrin v Northampton on the basis that there must be actual or imminent damage, but in more recent case law the Master of the Rolls thankfully dispelled the myth that nuisance must involve damage, stating that it just needs to be a deprivation of someone's right to enjoy their property. Simple rights like growing plants, being able to get past your house to the back garden. These need not involve damage, and it would be pretty shit law that didn't allow someone to abate this type of nuisance despite there being no damage nor any prospect of damage. So there's my firmly held view. The nuisance can be of any kind, and does not need to be damage or the apprehension of it, and since prevention of nuisance is as exempt as abatement, the 'actionable' test becomes one of whether it will become serious enough to be actionable rather than whether it is serious enough to be actionable. I'd go further and say that the seriousness issue is measured only by the 'so far as may be necessary' test, the actionable test being somewhat redundant. One could (and if anyone wants to see how it would look, I will) draw up a sequential scale of no foreseeable nuisance to actual material damage or prevention of use of property, and it is inevitable that prevention will precede actionable on that scale in any scenario.

Quite right. Hedges can comprise trees, and in a CA cutting them is a breach, hedge or no hedge. In the OP's case, they could possibly have been cut under the 'abatement of nuisance' exemption.

I thought it was clear form the original post that the subby was interested in the generalities rather than the specifics of this case. From what you say, if both subbies had insisted on working 3 days you would have done something else to make it work. I've been booked in to sub and then had the job cancelled the day before. I got nothing in in return. There were genuine reasons for cancellation. The contractor was one of my regulars so I just absorbed it. Had he done it a couple of times I would have binned him. It's a free market. One could rightfully insist on a 3rd day's pay. The contractor, if he had no other work on for me, would have to pay it from his own pocket for me to sit at home, which I think is harsh. So there's rights and there's pragmatism, two different things. Neither the contractor nor the subby will want to get the reputation for being unreasonable, regardless of legal rights. So for the long haul, I don't see the point in rocking a good boat.

Funny enough I looked for the pimples and couldn't see them and that was one factor in my leaning towards Auricularia. Isn't Exidia yellow when dessicated, and dark only when hydrated? I confess, I'm in Scotland and Auricularia is very common here but Exidia isn't even on my radar. So I could be wrong but it would be good to put it on my radar only from a position of reliable identification features. An additional confusion is that Tremella mesenterica is also known as Witches Butter.

Almost certainly Jelly Ear. Very common.

England and America are two countries separated by the same language. (Bernard Shaw) Quite a different sentiment.

Same as under the old rules, i.e. it's not defined. Trees which are technically part of the curtilege of a dwelling but would also come under the generally understood meaning of woodland would not be exempt. Also the last Reg 6 removes the garden exemption if it's a small woodland and of certain species. There have been and will continue to be grey areas. Individual ornamental species closest to and most intimately adjacent to a house are clearly exempt, but the farther away you get, the denser the trees, the more native then the less obvious the garden argument is. It wouldn't be too hard to systematically remove a lot of trees by using combinations of quarterly allowances and garden exemptions, but is needed because one big broadleaf will give no change out of 5 tonnes and if it's deemed too remote to be part of the garden it could be an offence to remove a second one at the same time. I've had and still have some borderline cases, but the underlying purpose of the Act is not clear enough to say what public interest there is in preventing private householders doing with their trees whatever they see fit. Parliament snuck the Regulations through with minimal consultation and ignored warnings in what consultation they did do. I personally wrote to the Minister about a couple of howlers in the draft Regs but he did precisely nothing about it. This is quite typical of the Scottish Parliament. Who decides what's a garden? A sheriff court initially. I wouldn't ask SF, it has no greater right or insight than anyone else to be able to decide.

I looked at the Sterken calculator, all the calculations are hidden, you just put numbers in and an answer comes out. He has published papers about it but I've not seen them. They'd probably turn up with a search. I can send you a copy of the calculator, he told me it was free to use.

Whoa! That says glasspaper. Is it really pastels on sandpaper?

That's a lot of detail for what's barely bigger than A4. It's lovely to have full provenance and a personal connection with art.

What does it mean? I am from the school of 'if it's a nice thing in its own right, it doesn't need to mean anything else for it to be art'.

Extraordinary and beautiful! Probably the artist had to cut a tree down afterwards for wood to replace the pencils.

monkey business has basically covered it there. I'd just add though that you need to watch out for the need for felling license (or 'permission, as it is now officially called in Scotland) even if there are no CAs/TPOs. It's a bit of a weak system. You can remove a tree before you apply for PP. You can remove it after the development is done. In theory you could even remove it while you are waiting for a planning decision (but I wouldn't recommend it). You just can't remove it after consent and before completion. There's an even stranger scenario. If you get consent but decide not to use it, you could remove a tree straight away, but this could mean that if you then changed your mind and decided to use the consent you could have enforcement action taken against you. It's not always that daft. I have come across a situation several times where a housing estate also has conditions that the developer has to put in place a mechanism for the maintenance of the open spaces. This is usually achieved by burdening all the houses with a share of the ownership and responsibility for the open spaces, and the need for a residents association. If the trees are in the common ownership areas, by rights a majority decision of the residents association is needed to allow removals. I am the chair of our RA and getting any two people to agree on anything is just about impossible. It leads to a situation where tree removals are rare, and usually unauthorised. In effect they are protected by intransigence. As chair I only sanction removals or pruning without a majority vote if they are a legal nuisance. As I say, just watch out for the new felling permission rules. Forestry Scotland is a bit unpredictable in its tolerance and interpretation so far. I did an article in the WInter Arb Magazine that covers it all.

Tis was my grounding in the subject Woodland Management A Practical Guide - Second Edition 9781847976178 | Brand New WWW.EBAY.CO.UK <br />Woodland Management A Practical Guide - Second Edition by Chris Starr 9781847976178 (Hardback, 2013) <br...

If no-one goes there then there's no risk and no reason to remove the limb. The tree will already have compartmentalised he damage and decay at an appropriate point. Cutting off a branch will only open up decay again. You'll not stop the spread of any disease by removing the limb. I'd say leave it.

Lichen. Common, and a good sign.

The smoking ban was fair enough, in an enclosed space one or more smokers exhale smoke and one or more non-smokers can't avoid inhaling it. The analogy to enclosed spaces, for wet wood burning, would be densely populated areas where there's no dilution and no avoiding the smoke, and where there's many affected. But the analogy breaks down. For smokers, the analogy would be to ban the sale of non low tar cigarettes to people who might be going to the pub. Unless you buy them in cartons of 200.

This one is interesting in that, although it is a photograph (which is almost 8' x 4') the name is arty. I don't get it, but it's a nice photo. Its called "False Perspectives 2019 ‘Now there, I make a comma…’ " and it's by by Kate Whiteford.

I am full of admiration for any artist that can create a likeness or even an impression of a tree. I have been finding it hard to find figurative tree art, I suspect my next few postings will just be paintings of trees. I was at a gallery last week and have quite a few to add.

That's really nice. I'd take that instead of cash. The cash would have been spent long ago but art just keeps giving.

I really rather like that, it seems the stuff of childhood dreams. I've even been inside a grossly overgrown double row hedge recently that felt like that.