daltontrees

It doesn't matter what came first. At law, encroachment is negligence if it causes foreseeable damage.

I can't be bothered replying to first time posters becuase they usually do vanish if no-one has given them an authoritative, detailed, free, copper-bottomed solution to their vague problem within say 10 minutes. Arbtalk should have an AI engine for such requests, it could generate eloquent generic advice without saying anything useful or commital. We could call it Arbificial Intelligence.

Well one could possibly contrive a situation where it's justifiable, but not in the normal business of life. I cant even think of one.

It won't rot and die because of the inclusion. The inclusion may split open in the future, leaving a fraction of the tree and a gaping wound that will never heal over.

Aoother arbtalk thread where no-one answers the question put by the OP. No, you can't cut down the tree on adjacent land. Not lawfully in any circumstances unless with the owner's permission. You could cut back roots and branches to the boundary. You may be able to mitigate or eliminate the adverse effects of the tree on your soils in various ways that do not involve removing the tree.

First chance I get to try this again for myself I will take it, but I don't do so much tree work these days. I'll try it with a silky on something small, the principle is the same at any size.

As on attached pic. I doubt if it will need a winch. If anything it might close on the saw. If it starts to, then pull out and cut through the bark on either side then nibble it from the sides till it goes.

Norway maple is famous for this. Sometimes it ends badly. Looks like it's too late to prune it out. Could be managed with bracing, thinning or reduction, depending a lot on wind exposure.

Based in these few pictures, I'd say it's do-able and if you don't it will be an isse for the tree for all its life. So on balance, I'd remove it while the tree is still young and vigorous. But' you'd need to leave zero stub and the only way to do that is a small gob immediately below the bottom of the inculsion and then effectively tear off the part to be removed. You've probably seen natureal tear-outs in beech loads of times. The key is not to touch the bark of the arch of the tear-out AT ALL with any saw, and at the same time prevent the bark below being torn too far down the stem. Personally I have long thought that the best success with pruning comes with mimicking nature, because trees have evolved to cope with branch losses for 100s of millions of years. So imitating a natural tear-out without letting the tear go too far down the stem would be best. These's all sorts of articles and discussion about how trees manage to split their vascular system at unions without compromising strength, but the best way to see it is to tear off an inclusion fork, that is the exact point nature has desingated as the weakest point surrounded by the best regenerative tissue. Callus will be stimulated by flexure, so leaving a great big lumpy pruning stub will prevent flexure and wood development on the retained side. It will look a bit like the dreaded flush-cut but in most ways it's the opposite, physiologically. Hope you follow what am suggesting and go for it and post pics now and in the future.

A poplar with an upper central leader that is 2 foot diameter. In my opinion the only good poplars are either dead ones or ones that are far from anyone or anything.

It might be nonsensical. Just saying that as a contractor I wouldn't expect it to be my role to revisit the rationale, I'd just do it and get paid for it. Being inquisitive is great, personally I can't help being that way. But speculating based on a vague description and without the consultant being available to comment is not going to change anything. It's got to be about retention of habitat, though, even if it's only for a few years. Maybe bat roosting, maybe saproxylic insects.

Speculating that the removal of the hollow and a mertre of stem below it will leave a clean single wound that thas a better chance of occluding. Most big interventions are doomed to failure, and if there is aready fungal hollowing in heartwood/ripewood then the prognisis is not good. Might just be buying time. Might be partly aesthetic. Might be wrong. Don't know. If i was engaged as contractor I'd just do it.

The consultant has specified what is to be done. No need to know why.

If it is to be a medium-term fixture, then attaching it by ratchet strap or lashing won't do, you will need to support its weight properly in a way that doesn't fail if the piece decays and reduces in diameter. I suggest thinking about 1. supporting its weight from above and 2. attaching it to the stem to prevent movement as two separate things. A cross bucket knot with a spare length of rope will support it from above, hanging from a suitable fork.. Then you can lash it to the stem with ratchet strap or a second bit of rope using any of a number of girth hitches. If you plan it carfully you can tie the bucket knot with the reef knot in one of the 'handles' so that it can be untied and retied around the fork when you hoist the piece into the tree.

Add i just tried it, I managed to collapse it by pulling it in the 'wrong' direction'. Almost impossible in the other direction, though.

My first uses of it was glacier crossings, it only had to take one body weight. Haven't used it for big pulls. Maybe I have to revisit. Looking at it closely it seems to be in effect an alpine butterfly in one direction of pull but with an extra buffer in the other direction.

Can't have everything! It looks very close to being an alpine butterfly and has a directional aspect to it. And looks horrible. I'd be learning the alpine butterfly if I was you. It is an easy visual check

Me neither but I used it in sailing years ago as a quick and easy way to shorten a rope. It can also be used to isolate a damaged section of rope, which I had to do during a mountaineering incident a few years ago. Alpine butterfly can be used for the same purpose.

Looks like a sheep shank

One additional property I think of is that a good knot is one where you can immediately see if it's wrong. A few knots have dangerous fake versions if you don't tie them right. Good to be able to check visually if it looks wrong.

This is what I was hinting at, if you remove trees before suspensive conditions are signed off then the tree works cannot legally be commencement of development. And strictly speaking their removal in a conservaiton area, reliant only on the planning permission to give them statutory exemption, is unlawful. AMSs have no particular legal status. They only have whatever status is conferred on them by conditions, but they can also be used (in my experience and interpretation of legislation) as implied permission. So can approved planning drawings. But only if all the suspensive conditions have been met. You''' have seen the kind of thing "No development will commence until the applicant has submitted a blahdeblah for whatever to be approved in writing by the Council" Having planning permission and being allowed to start are different things. No start, no permission after several years. Some big expensive legal cases have been fought, and lost, on this.

There's always a slightly better knot for each situation, but the differences are slight. I'd use Zeppelin - joiing 2 ropes securely Reef - joining 2 ropes lightly Sheet bend - joining 2 ropes of different diameter Alpine butterfly - midline, takes pull in any of 3 directions Swabian for climbing line. Prussik or klemheist for shunting Tautline or Blakes for emergency extra tie-in Marlin hitch for sending stuff up. Bowline for almost everything Double figure of 8 for permanent end of lowering rope. Clove hitch for all sorts but not if getting pulled hard. Great for sending combi-spanner up a tree. Highwaymans hitch for quick release of any rope that has to be tied out of the way for a few minutes. Anchor hitch for krab on end of rope. Fishermans for same. And as stopper knot. Double fishermans for making up loops. Water knot for slings from tape. Italian (munter) hitch for impromptu descents or lowering. Round turn anad 2 half hitches for tieing off to stem Girth hitch for lowering. Didn't realise I use so many. I read a study somewhere that tested each knot for its effect on loss of rope strength. Bowline came in at 65% ish. But easier to untie after loading. Double figure of 8 came in very high, about 85%, but a pig to untie after loading. And it all goes to hell when ropes are wet, knots can set forever, sometimes have to cut them off.

NIAB says this. Overcoming biennial bearing With varieties that have developed a biennial pattern of cropping growers should: Prune away excessive spurs in the winter prior to an ‘on’ year. Thin blossoms on biennial varieties in the ‘on’ year. Thin, preferably at flowering time, using ATS. No chemical treatments, other than thinning treatments are approved for use against biennial bearing

Is someone saying that the tree works are NOT commencement? There is a lot of case law about this sort of thing, since commencement kees a valuable planning permission alive forever otherwise it would expire within the period stated in the permission. If trees are removed but there are outstanding suspensive conditions (e.g. approval of building materials, contamination reports) then the tree works are not commencement. Indeed, if they are only authorised by the planning permission, starting the tree works while other conditions are not yet met would make them unlawful. One of the tests is whether the works (in this case, trees) could have gone ahead anyway without the planning permission then they might not qualify as commencement of development. Are they TPOd or in a consevation area? Could be significant. Quite a complicated business really.

Not even that clearcut. Tree work only comes under CDM if the trees are being used as a structure for construction. Or so I have been informed.