daltontrees

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.

Still in denial? Mynors launches into this from the perspective of the neighbouring proprietor's rights at common law. 3.7.2 is mainly about whether his tenant can abate a nuisance. It is about the tort of nuisance, not about abatement. It does not say that a tree owner can't abate or prevent a nuisance. Of course he can. That's so obvious it doesn't need to be said. 17.5.1 is also from the neighbour perspective, but where there is a TPO. 3 scenarios are presented. Abatement by the tree owner is dismissed if it is to be done to abate a nuisance to himself. Quite rightly. But the section (17.5) goes on to conclude at 17.5.8 as I did yesterday that if a nuisance exists to a neighbour, the tree owner can prevent or abate it by carrying out work to his own tree. It's almost identical to common law. It really really is that simple. Please read 17.5.8.

I have done that. I am working from the 1st edition of Mynors. At 17.5.8 he says "It seems therefore that the 'prevention of a nuisance' means the carrying out of works for the removal of branches and roots of one's own tree that are encroaching over or into the land of a neighbour". Unless there's been a screaming and completely inexplicable U turn on his deliberations in the 2nd edition, I hold that I am in fact correct, the exemption may be used by the owner of a TPO'd tree to carry out work to it without consent, if and only to the extent necessary (all other solutions being disproportionatley expensive or complex*) to prevent or abate an actionable nuisance. The perusal of Mynors has been useful in reminding me that the courts and parliament see the statutory exemption as useable in the sense of common law nuisance, subject to the severity being 'actionable'. I am relieved that it is that simple. The compensation for damage provisions are a different thing completely, as I thought. If Mynors goes to a 3rd edition, the recent development of the law of nuisance particularly the validity of quia timet nuisance, would I think be such that the abatement exemption may be explained as allowing for work in the anticipation of damage. In the 1st edition he hinted at government intention to make changes. I wrote to him in such a tone during the recent welsh tree law review. *along the lines thrashed out in Perrtin v Northampton at appeal.

WRT preceding two posts, I am finding this explanation unsatisfactory, and I'd like to get tho the bottom of this with or without you guys' help. I believe it is wrong to assume that the compensation for damages provision in the 2012 Regs (and formerly in the Act) override the exception for abatement. I believe it is clear that the compensation provisions are there for the benefit of someone wanting to address damage to their own property by their own tree. Arguably they are there only for that situation and not for the nuisance damage situation. And the compensation Regulation obliges the tree owner and claimant to have averted or mitigated loss. I'll even stick my neck out and say that on ones own land, "to avert the loss or damage or to mitigate its extent" (R.24(4)(c)) is directly analagous to "necessary for the prevention or abatement of a nuisance" (R.14(a)(ii)). As such, it's irrational to infer that they overlap or that one overrides the other. They anticipate and deal with different situations. I'd add that it is dangerous to assume that nuisance equals damage, or vice versa.* It's probably safe to stick to the line that the nuisance or imminent prospect of it has to be 'actionable', but that's not the question here. There are other forms of actionable nuisance than damage (see recent Network Rail case, which seems to question convincingly and usefully that dangerous assumption). There could be situations when failing to prevent a nuisance could be just as damning as failing to abate it. Sorry guys, but you appear to be arguing against the very plain wording of the legislation. Can anyone direct me to case law that clarifies that a tree owner has to apply for consent to do something that is specifically and clearly excepted in the Regulations? I accept that 'necessary' and 'nuisance' are not trivial hurdles to get over, but once over them there's no further obstacle to crossing the line i.e. abating the nuisance before getting sued. * e.g. branch encroachment preventing the parking of a car could be nuisance but not damage. A dangerous tree fallign on a neighbour's property could be damage but not nuisance.

But that's irrational. If a tree is causing nuisance, the neighbour who is being 'nuisanced' can self-abate under the exception. But the tree owner must be able to prevent or abate a nusiance, otherwise the statute would be preventing him doing what the common law obliges him to do. As such I believe the exception allows the owner more, not less, opportunity to carry out tree works to abate nuisnace, because the owner is better placed to anticipate, then prevent nuisance.