daltontrees

100 to 1 it's an Italian Alder (Alnus cordata).

Not quite true, Council has a duty to ensure, whenever it is appropriate, that provision is made for the preservation of trees. It needs to be appropriate. Only then do they have a duty. If so, the Coucil may require a BS5837 survey, AIA and tree protection plan. If they don't ask for one, you don't need to provide it.

It's a turkish hazel. Whter demand is based on mature height. Yours looks close to maxed out. Engineer advice based on Elm is in appropriate. Besides, if it's a street tree, water demand resulting in subsidence would be a legal nuisance, which could be grounds for abatement. It would be a very extreme view for consent to be refused based on the argument that approval would result in the need to remove the nuisance i.e. the tree.

What a miserablely small amount of land to leave for such a big tree to struggle on in.

Wow, that's not got long for this world!

It's beside a minor road leading to a static caravan park. The potholes are so bad that cars go past at less than walking pace (I had to invent a new QTRA target value). I have recommended taking it down to 6m. There's a lot of woodpeckers in the area and it would be good habitat for them and smaller birds to feed on. And seeing as you mention it, a question. It is reallly really goosed with K.deusta at the base, can't reallly tell what the Ganoderma is up to in isolation. I am a wee bit concerned abut it being top-heavy even if reduced toa pole. Do you think there is any benefit in these situations of really really distressing the pole round the top to accelerate decay? I suspect the top will remain mostly sound and heavy long after the bottom is mush, and it could fall over onto the road in years to come. I'd rather keep it tall than go for a 3m pole.

Darn, David, you beat me to it by a minute or two.

That's almost certainly Meripilus giganteus, on Beech unless I'm istaken. Whether the tree needs to come down is a matter of when. It's not going to get better, but if it's still got a full crown you may be able to keep it for a few years. It depends on its stature too, if it's squat and not going to hit anything if it falls over, you could try and keep it but if it's tall and exposed to winds and near buildings or roads a precautionary approach might be best, get rid of or reduce it.

Some euphimism, like 'dead but habitat-rich'.

I have stitched the following together frrm snippets found on reliable websites. I see that I remembered the toxic substance name wrong. It's Juglone, not Juglase. 5-hydroxy-1,4-naphthalenedione. But you all knew that anyway. Seems English Walnut is not so bad as Black Walnut. I think the latter only does well in UK in warmer areas. Walnus can struggle in Scotland, but bizarrely I found one doing well and fruiting on the very steep slopes below Stirling castle, on the most meagre of soils, almost bare rock. Judging by how hard it was to get to it to survey it, I think that brambles and nettles are very resistant to Juglone. Many trees use allelopathy to protect their space by using their roots to pull more water from the soil so other plants cannot thrive. Some use their allelochemicals to inhibit germination or impede development of nearby plant life. Most allelopathic trees release these chemicals through their leaves, which are toxic once absorbed by other plants. Black walnut is a prime example of this. In addition to its leaves, black walnut trees store allelopathic properties within their buds, nut hulls, and roots. The chemical responsible for its toxicity, called Juglone, remains in the soil around the tree and is most potent at the drip line, though the roots can spread out well beyond this. The English walnut produces the chemical in lesser amounts. Plants most susceptible to the black walnut’s toxicity include azaleas, pines, and birch trees. Other trees that are known to exhibit allelopathic tendencies include maple, pine, and eucalyptus. The tree of heaven, Ailanthus altissima, produces allelochemicals in its roots that inhibit the growth of many plants. Ornamentals tolerant of walnut trees include forsythia, hawthorn, oaks, wild rose, daylilies, iris, phlox, Shasta daisy, and Virginia creeper. Black walnut tolerant plants include the sugar maple, flowering dogwood and the boxelder to name a few. You can also plant crocuses, hyacinths and begonias. All of these plants are known to be black walnut tolerant plants. There are many more, and your local garden center can inform you of any intolerable plants so you don’t run into any problems.

Knackered Beech this week down the Ayrshire coast. K. deusta at the base, a Ganoderma about 1m directly above it, S. hirsutum on the mid crown and lots of Oudemansiella mucida on the stem and limbs.

Just be warned, Walnut is allelopathic i.e. it will try to kill all other plants within its rooting area. It usually does a pretty good job of this. It emits an enzyme called Juglandase that is toxic to most woody perennials as far as I can remember. Most trees are happy to share a rooting zone with other trees of another species, but Walnut wants it all for itself. I think it even kills its own offspring.

Orientation is everything! Everything... That's not true. Use dwarf stock or it will go horribly wrong.

The exact wording of the Act is - (i) for the purposes of preserving public health or public or air safety; (j) for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease ; or (k) for the purposes of preventing serious damage to livestock. foodstuffs for livestock. crops. vegetables. fruit. growing timber or fisheries. if it is done under and in accordance with the terms of a licence granted by the appropriate authority. SNH has no autuhority to grant licenses for preserving private safety. A license could be refused if public safety was at stake but could ba assured instead by excluding the public from the area around a dangerous tree. This is the situation I found myself in last year. SNH would not grant a license because the public and private occupiers of a hotel car park could be excluded from the danger area until the bird went away.

I see there's 2 threads at least running on this subject. I have commented in the other one.

Blurry Ganoderma, too blurry to know which species

The last point is a good one. Is it not logical that people buying wood in small quantities are less likely to store it for long enough for it to increase its humidity, undermining the whole point of forcing people to take 2m3 deliveries? And forcing kiln drying, isn't that going to use up a lot of fossil fuels? The rationale for the 2m3 delivery rule is highly highly suspect to my reading. The consultation document says it is to stop occasional users buying wet bags from the garage. If they're only occasional users, their contribution to pollution is surely minimal. But that is the only rationale given for forcing big deliveries. In my experience customers take smaller deliveries because they don't have room to store large quantities or can only get volumes of wood to their back door if it's in carryable bags. I'm not going to respond to the consultation, though, for 2 reasons. Firstly it only applies to England, and secondly I think the wet wood fascists at big brother HQ have already made their minds up. But I do hope one of you lot down south get it on the record that wood rehydrates in storage and that larger deliveries are therefore a bad idea. Unless the govt is suggesting that all woodburning households store 2m3 in their living rooms?

Try Fever Tree Vachellia xanthophloea syn Acacia x.

I've never seen one. Have you got a rugged case for it? You might be quicker making a 'harness' for it. Can't be that hard.

Longhorn beetle?

Looks like Ganoderma resinaceum... or early stages of Fistulina hepatica.

Not so in Scotland, licenses are only for aviation safety and public health. Because that's all that the WCA allows SNH to license.

Yerwhot? He agreed to pruning, which I believe was done in his preferred winter, and was concerned only that the neighbour had done it again but in summer, and was asking if he should further reduce " to try and keep the issue from escalating". Really quite the opposite of using the tree to annoy the neighbour. I have experienced FB Arbtalk briefly and have no intention of going there again. Rude, ignorant, foul, aggressive, unhelpful, with ocasional outbreaks of tree related subject matter. Almost devoid of constructive debate and learning.

Could help you with that as long as it's just for study purposes. PM me.

Funny, after reading the whole thread I never got that impression about OP's motives at all. What a lot to read into someone's desire to avoid the unnecessary loss or damage of a tree... Standard Arbtalk thread here, someone asks a question and no-one answers it, off they go on various interesting entertaining or caustic tangents. So what was the original question? " if they continue will this cause permanent damage to my tree and should the canopy be reduced this winter to try and keep the issue from escalating ? " Someone's already said, Copper Beech inner leaves are sensitive. Hard pruning can result in scorch. But I can't see an established tree being killed. The idea of permanent damage is vague, yes the cutting back to the boundary will permanently affect the branch structure at the boundary but it probably won't kill the tree. And as has also been said, the neighbour doesn't need permission to cut to the boundary, so it's a moot question. If OP gets it that this isn't really an issue, he can let the boundary be cut like a hedge forever. Then the need to reduce the canopy in winter isn't really a need. Personally I'd give the tree a break this winter. From what I can see of the pictures and situation, I'd let it go and maybe next summer of the tree has flushed fully I would consider a voluntary crown reduction (particularly height) and resign myself to maintaining the tree at about its current height and spread for the foreseeable. Small and regular cuts to a Beech are sutainable in the long term, big drastic cuts disfigure, decay and shift the hormone distribution in ways that it is hard to predict by the inexperienced. I don't see the need to infer passive-aggressive motives. It's a question of physiology and common law. The OP appears a reasonable person just trying to understand a novel situation. Nothing wrong with asking.