daltontrees

I got a new microscope slide, it's a section through the axillary bud of a sycamore. The second picture is taken in cross polarised ight and the bright areas are likely to be cellulose. The gritty bits are likely to be starch granules.

They've both got small red fruit. The second one has red buds, very pointed, teh first has drab grey and usually slightly furry buds.

I saw this in Tescos, thought it was a rather poor choice of abbreviation...

More like Sorbus domestica.

Sorbus, probably rowan.

That can't be good. This link is quite informative on the subject. The real story of Stale Petrol WWW.GARDEN-KIT.CO.UK The truth behind the stale petrol issue. Petrol really does go stale as this article by Devon Aspen agent Garden Kit reveals... All I can think of is that the sugary stuff is salts of aluminium origin. Which could only have come from the body of the saw. My daughter has a crystal growing kit which uses aluminium salts that seem to crystallise readily. They're hopefully not too abrasive

I just checked this, and the wind loading to be assumed for buildings (which is what Paul Muir was referring to) varies across the UK but for central Scotland it's about 54mph which is top of Beaufort Scale 9 (severe gale). The lowest UK speed to be assumed is around Oxfordshire 45mph, top of Beaufort 8.

I was at the presentation. And yes, static load testing (or more importantly the mathematical modelling that is used on the results) indicates that reductions are rarely the appropriate risk reduction response. There is a very narrow window between trees having enough extra strength that reduction is not necessary, and being so bad that removal is the appropriate action. The presentation supported the issues relating to t/R ratios discussed on Arbtalk recently in response to an article by Frank Rinn. Essentially t/R as a predictor of failure is almost meaningless after a tree reaches maturity.IU asked Paul Muir afterwards if it was possible to correlate static load testing safety factors and QTRA probabilities of failure. He didn't really answer the question, but did suggest that if the SF is over 1.5 there is no risk of failure (P = 0) and if it is 1 or less then failure is inevitable (P = 1). I thought about this before, during and after the presentation and I believe it is far from being that simple. However, to try and define the correlation would take a whole paper in itself and access to the mathematical model. I personally don't believe the whole range of probability of failures from 1/1,000,000 to 1/1 can simply be accommodated between SFs of 1 and 1.5. But even if generally that simple, does this mean that there is no role for estimating probability of failure for QTRA assessments? Well, no. I expect a full static load test would cost several £00 a tree, which is rarely justified. And the modelling is based on some assumptions and inputs that aren't always appropriate. And in many situations it would not be physically possible to do the tests. The tests are also applicable only to rootplates and stems. And I don't think there is any means of taking account of prognosis. It all comes down (for me anyway) to one issue which has not to my knowledge been fully resolved by UK case law and that is, at what point in extreme weather does the duty holder (occupiers liability etc.) not have to be responsible for foreseeable harm or damage? Some would say (and Paul Muir alluded to this too) it is around mid Beaufort Scale 9. And there is still a right time for reductions as a risk management response, but mainly when it is acknowledged that it will tip the tree into decline and when there is little alternative means to preserve some of the benefits the tree provides.

I'd say ity is indeed an umbrella pine Sciadopytis verticillata

Yes the article shows that once trees stop putting on height the t/r 'rule' ceases to have relevance.

Sounds like this is a legal question rather than an engineerign or arboricultural issue. I can't tell a lot from the pictures but as you describe it it shouldn't take much to show that soil with or without trees on the adjacent land is causing damage to the wall. An engineer or a building survey or could do this. The tree aspect would be contributory but probably isn't as fundamentally important as the difference in ground levels. The question seems to me to be whether the neighbour has the right to rely on the wall as a retaining structure. At common law adjacent landowners cannot rely on built structures to retain their land. But it's not as simple as that because in the past some agreement may have been reached that trumps common law. If it was not recorded by changes in titles then it was only a personal agreeement and if the property or properties have changed hands since then the agreement may have ceased to have any enforceable effect. In other words, you'd be back to the common law situation or the default situation in the titles. I'd start with an inspection of title. That will help inform your options. At one extreme you could be bound to repair the wall to continue providing support to a neighbour, at the other extreme yor neighbour could be liable in negligence for repairing or reinforcing the wall.

I'd advise saying nothing, not even here on Arbtalk. It could get ugly and anything you say could be used against you. Be careful but don't worry. As the saying goes, the law works best when it is subservient to the honesty of the case. PM me if you want pointed in the right direction.

It sounds like all you have seen is an internal repot of handling that indicates mindedness to approve. If so, it's not approval and you shouldn't proceed with the works yet. You have a right to appeal the non-decision, after 8 weeks from application. And just be careful here. You can appeal any time after that if you don't get any decision, but if you get a late decision that you don't like, you only have 28 days form the decision to appeal. Here's where it makes a difference where you are. Someone recently said the period for appeal turnaround in England is about 8 months! You could always appeal in the hope that it would hasten a decision, but i doubt it would.

What country are you in? The answer depends partly on this.

I wouldn't say 'observation of the content', I only read the punchline. I'll read it later too.

That document is enough thanks. It concludes that " If all Orders are reviewed ...., the task will take eleven work-years to complete with one person working full-time on that project alone." That gives some idea of how much it would cost.

The reason I asked was to get an idea of whether the survey covered you in the event of harm or damage to toy or a neighbour or BT etc. Based on what you have said and the photographs showing decay probably established for a number of years, there is a possibility that the major defect was missed by the surveyor. The only other option is tha the decay was seen but the surveyor consciously decided it was not 'significant' (which, based on the photos is a questionable decision). I frequently get shown tree survey reports by others and I correlate the use of certain phraseology with people of known abilities/inabilities, and anyone that says 'no wokr is required at this moment in time' is probably not fully understanding the role of the surveyor and how risk should be assessed. The fact that no re-inspection recommendation is given is I think the conclusive proof that this is an amateurish survey. You say it was by a consultant. Wow! I only know part of the story based on pictures and what you have said, but I'd suggest that the survey is close to useless to you. I hope you didn't pay a lot for it. If you did, you could be looking for your money back so you can spend it on a proper tree risk assessment from someone who is insured and competent. I am of the 'another tree survey' opinion. It might cost money but it might save a lot. But if you are worried enough to do some work to it, consider this. That would is never going to heal over. The wood is probably going to get weaker and weaker, and perhaps the branches above it are going to get heavier and heavier. Removing any branches is goign to remove the only chance the tree has to fend off decay and to put on reaction wood to compensate for the loss of strength. So it might be an all-or-nothing moment. There's an in-between possibility, and that is bracing, which needn't be fancy, nothing more than rope and a couple of slings. Or, removal of the top few metres of the affected stem wold buy you a number of years, even if it does accelerate the eventual inevitable removal of dead weight.

I've been saying this for years. The situation has got worse recently with Councils arguing CAVAT values for the loss of trees, as if the TPO acquires the tree for the public. And someone mentioned compulsory purchase. If it were a compulsory purchase the tree owner would be entitled to compensation. As a consultant I'd love to be involved in a case contesting CAVAT in such a situation, because it's about time it was quashed, as it most certainly would be.

I'd be interested in seeing that.

I'd say tyhat defect is at least 5 years old. And I'd also say the tree is not going to recover from it. Two questions. Did the report on the survey last year mention the defect? What reinspection period did the report recommend?

Yeah, don't use the one your wife keeps for cleaning her jewellery ?

I can't find any official source that says that this proposed ban is going to go ahead. H. along with Phil Hammond?

Agreed on the first point. See what a shit and misleading system it is? I have no view on the second points.

I'll tell you the point. You are incorrectly using the word 'majority'. It doesn't mean 'the most of'. It's not an argument, it's a matter of the correct use of words. In the example you put, the correct answer is indeed no-one, not because I would argue it but because it's factually correct. Your rhetoric would be clearer to follow if you don't mix up majority of votes with majority of seats. And FPTP is an analogy that only works for the constituency votes. In parliament government comes from most past the post i.e most of the first past the posts. Positively primitive, in my opinion, as it gives two linked opportunities to alienate large parts of society. Anyway, some people care. When the new scottish parliament had the opportunity to design a system form scratch it introduced a system that is more inclusive. Because enough people cared.

Bizarre! How about a system that doesn't let any one party fuck things up? Better, no? Instead of government policy lurching from one side to the other. It shouldn't be series of partisan experiments.