daltontrees

Yes it's almost certainly caused by a parasitic fungus called Taphrina betulina, which triggers a profusion of twigs, which often then die. Common on Birch, Harmless overall to the tree. I don't think there's any realistic preventative treatment and although it may recur in the same tree I don't see any way of treating it. The brooms (or besoms) can be removed but it seems a bit pointless to me.

Very interesting. What species of Spruce is it?

Paul, you've posted the 2017 decision, which was then appealed and the appeal decision has just come out. The written judgement of the appeal it is expected soon. It mught be more useful for folks to wait to see that.

This stuff can be used, filled with pea gravel instead of soil.

It might be Flammulina, maybe it goes wrinkly on top when it's detached.

Turn it over then...

Yes probably Sorbus intermedia Swedish Whitebeam.

I saw these last week, I'm just posting the pics for general interest.

I shoud have said 'known' association, as others have reported it. I have seen what I thought was I.h. on oak in Wales on several occasions but could not verify without a climb. I shoudl have said nothing, actually. Up north we get very few unconventional associations, and some of the fungi you seem to spot regularly just don't appear up her at all. Do you think it's probably F. hepatica?

Alnus glutinosa, perhaps? Any tree can be moved if you take a big enough chunk of soil with it. That one might need a metre radius around it, and down about 0.6m.

Also worth considering Inonotus hispidus due to height and common association with Oak.

Just as a matter of professional interest, did the Council ask for replacement planting?

Ahhhh, I've just noticed I said there is 'not' a dead exception. My brain told my fingers to type 'now' and it somehow came out as 'not'. Sorry for the confusion. There is of course a 'dead' exception in England.

My point exactly!?

No need, that was exactly what I meant. And/or what the OP meant. For the sake of the OP I'm glad I qualified my original response. In Sotland we just have to humour England's assumption that the world revolves around it.

I am going for the longest satellite delay in Arbtalk history here. No-one replied to this ID request (post no. 6 of 10,5535), I reckon it's a Quercus frainetto.

A propos of nothing, saw this yesterday, looks like the ivy's indecision cost it, the Sycamore has since expanded and split the fork. Pleased me gratly, as I FFFFF hate ivy.

No I just mean that different versions of the legislation over the years used different styles of TPO and it could depend on the date of the TPO as to what the rules are. But this much can be said. For a while the English legislation had a dead and dying exception, This has been replealed and there is not a 'dead' exception in England. No such exception has ever existed in Scotland. In fact, there is no clarity on dead trees in the legislation, and bizzarely the Guidance wrongly states that there is a dead, dangerous and dying exception in Conservation Areas. I have checked the legislation, and this is nonsense. Clear? Not at all, that's the way the rules are up here, all over the place. But fundamentally, TPOs only prohibit certain acts, and taking away a fallen tree isn't one of them unless it's alive. All that is at stake here is whether the Council tries to force you to plant a replacement. The legal position is that it can't if the tree as fallen over and is fundamentally not viable. Allt his said it would be a good idea to let the Council know for their own records that the tree is down. Ths should be done without prejudice to the statutory position. PM me if it gets messy and you need opinion.

If it is 'dead', and it's in England, no application is required. If it's in Scotland it's a whole lot more complicated.

Glagial tills or fluvioglacial deposits on Carboniferous Coal Measures. Just about no chance of shrinkable clays and heave. And it's a tiny tree. And the foundations should be suitable for the ground conditions. Chop away.

Three flaws in your treatise Edward C. The first clarification is that nuisance does not have to involve damage. The Network Rail case made this ever so clear, and is bang up to date. So, there can be nuisance from encroachment without damage, and it can be actionable of it's serious enough. The second is that a tree owner can abate a nuisance by cutting branches or roots on the neighbour's land, with the consent of that neighbour, as part of an agreement to abate a nuisance or an offer to do so. The exception for TPO trees makes no distinction as to who abates or prevents, it is the nuisance that is important. The third is that an encroaching branch that is causing an actionable nuisance can be removed to abate a nuisance, not to prevent it, and the 'abate' exception is therefore available to the tree owner, not just the 'prevent'. That's what the Act says. There are even circumstances when abatement would requires removal of the whole tree. Unusual, but legally competent. It's not dangerous ground at all. The TPO exception is clear and can apply to non-damage nuisance to a neighbour, and abatement or prevention of it by a tree owner. The risks are these (i) using the exception for trivial nuisance (ii) ignoring possible alternative solutions to pruning and (iii) doing more than is necessary. I'll reword it as a set of simple rules. If a TPO'd tree is causing or willl foreseeably cause nuisance to a neighbour, the tree owner may prune roots or branches or roots on his own land (or, with the agreement of the neighbour, on the neighbour's land) without the Planning Authority's prior consent, as long as (i) the nuisance is or will foreseeably become actionable (ii) possible alternative solutions to pruning have been considered and ruled out and (iii) no more is done than is necessary to abate or prevent the nuisance. Hopefuly that's clear now. If not, a re-reading of Network Rail and Perrin will do the trick. The ground is only dangerous to tread on if uninformed or reckless. I leave you with another pespective. If the exception could be used but the tree owner instead asks the LPA for consent, the LPA has no duty to consider the issues of nuisance and can not be relied upon (or called upon) to resolve a civil law dispute. Statute provides exceptions and expects that they be used. What would the justification be for th TPO application works? The prevention or abatement of a nuisance? If it was and I was the LPA, I'd bounce it and invite the applicant to use the exception. It's what it's there for, and what the LPA's not there for i.e. arbitrating in legal disputes.

Is this addressed at me? I'm just trying to help the guy to get to the point. You are inviting exactly the sort of potentially needless speculation that I was trying to avoid. It would be much more productive if OP could answer a few preliminary questions, to narrow it down. Where is he/she anyway?

It was a bit harsh, but what's the point in speculating and worrying someone unnecessarily? Chances of a peaty soil in an urban environment are low. That may just be the topsoil. So why read anything into it without knowing the geology?

Heave is dependent on soil type and climate, both of whch are location-sensitive. Where are you? If you don't say, there's no point in anyone commenting. There's already a low chance of shrinkable clays in areas that have coal deposits, but htat'sjust based on my geology background.

You also asked " Are we, as the owners of the trees, liable for minor damage such as lifting block paving? That prompted some general replies about law of nuisance and abatement. It may have seemed off-topic for me to go on about TPO exemptions, but I was only reacting to incorrectly stated generalities. It' a public forum after all, and I don't like the idea of people going away with a misunderstanding. You're probably in the wrong place if you expect to hear only from LA TOs. But why restrict yourselves to them? Don't you just want to know where any tree owner stands when faced with disproportionate demands for tree felling following minor damage? Why copy the pragmatism of others when you can come up with the right answer yourself? If you do, it's just a matter of common law. And the common law comes from case law. You may not want to get into court cases, but that's what happens. The Perrin case for example was required because up till then the law was not clear enough. It probably cost the parties (including the Council) tens of thousands each. And we get the answer for free. Including you. If you want to see the danger of generalising without understanding, read that case and you may appreciate that the answer can hang in a fine balance, and that you may need to take correctly calibrated scales with you day-to-day.