daltontrees

So why are you looking for views here? ? There's a key point here. If it's TPO'd and you want to do work on it you need permission, so you have to apply for it and the law states that you have to give "a statement of the applicant’s reasons for making the application". So far you haven't said why you want to do anything to the tree. Sorry if I come across as hostile, but I don't see how anyone can advise you unless they know your reasons. The whole point of TPOs is to stop tree owners diminishing trees without good reason. If you apply and don't give reasons, it's not that you will get a refusal, it's that the Council will probably and quite rightly refuse to register/validate the application.

I'll try and find it. I think it was in the AA mag.

You are missing something. I didn't say that trees don't share their rooting environments. I said that not having to increase the collective rooting area or see diminished growth was an irrrational assumption. Does nature allow a highly evolved species the luxury of not maximising its use of available resources? I really don't think so. So, introduce comeptition from a similar individual of that species into those limited resources and something has to give and/or synergies have to arise to benefit one or both. We aren't discussing the rooting area, we are restricting ourselves to the defined constraints or RPA per BS5837.

Kevin, this is something that I seem to encounter very often. The significance of whether it is one tree affects its (their) categorisation as well as RPA(s). If it's one tree, I'd say it's quality is diminsihed by what is probably maturing epicormics. Furthermore, removal of the subsidiary stems is going to open up the whole tree to infection, and Ash wouldn't stand a chance fighting it off.If that's right, then there is no management recommendation that would restore the tree to the quality of a sinlge stemmed A or B. If it's more than one tree, the subsidiary stems could be removed, and it could be a sound management recommendation that they be removed. When gradign them they could be seen as of "very low quality ... suppressing adjacent trees of better quality", and as such they would be Cat U. Regarding RPAs, there is I recall some published support for the view that where two trees are within each others' RPA the rooting areas are shared, without needing to increase the size of either. This is irrational except and unless the trees are diminished in development because of their competition for resources. Even then it's a questionable argument, but it is overpowered anyway by the arbitrary nature of the 12x multiplier. To apply 5837 to this situatuon, you have to know or at least settle on an assumption about whther it is one or two or more trees. Then one or multiple RPAs can be calculated. But if anyone then draws multiple RPAs as circles, they're kidding themselves on. I mean, how would the roots of the smaller stems get under the large stem? Also Duncan Slater published an article a coupel of years ago making a good case that trees are positively hostile to each other, especially if the same species. That's why I investigate and show it's one or multiple failing which state a reasonable assumption of whether it's one or many, and if it's many I skew both RPAS away from each other. And back to my first point, the real significance is in the Categorisation. One tree with multistemmed cna cause downgradde with no managment solution. Multiple treess can result in the subservient ones being downgraded to U, and a valid management solution being their removal. For what it's worth, the body language of your situation is saying to me multiple trees.

So far this is promotion and advertising, but if VALID is as comprehensive as it claims, it could be a boon to society and the industry. My concern is that unless it is either fully open to scrutiny by its users OR VALID is guaranteeing that it meets the duty of care for consultants and tree owners, then it is a big risk for its users. Is VALID willing to answer questions about the system, or are there plans for publication and peer review before it comes into use?

It looks like he is using HDF (=hardboard), which is just wood fibres and resin.

Oops, Lucombe, not Luncombe

Thanks for the update and closure. Personally I stand corrected (it looked like petraea), aint never seen a Luncombe but look forward to meeting one some day.

And depends on what hardware you have.

If I lived there I'd have a PICUS permanently attached to the tree and I'd check it once a day, twice at weekends.

Or any of those distinctive bright red berries of thuringiaca?

It aint Sorbus. It aint even Rosaceae. I'd bet on Quercus petraea, the Sessile Oak. Native, not as common as robur. Distinctive long petiole.

Deodar is the only one of the 3 common subspecies/species that has needles almost as long (1 1/2 to 2 inches) as the cones. Atlas needles rarely exceed 1 inch long. Lebanon similar. On that basis I'd say it's a Deodar.

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?