daltontrees

OK the answer which someone let slip is much less interesting than some of the clinic-related guesses, it was a hazel flower (female), and the sample was nabbed on Sunday just outside Glasgow. Here's close-up of the male part (hmm, bracing myself for all sorts of comments). The tree/bush was pretty big and festooned with male catkins, but I could only find a few female flowers.

Didn't read the instructions, eh? Kind of spoils the fun if you post your answer.

I'd agree with janey. I have been involved with 3 that did what yours is doing and in all cases honey fungus was confirmed. I saw one of them last week that I had recommended be removed 5 years ago. It has fallen over. Once the stem bark has split like that, I think you can give up all notions of feeding/mulching. I associate it with separation of bark and wood quite far around the stem, not a split in the wood. I have never seen a monkey puzzle stem fail, it's unthinkable given the density of the wood.

WHat you have described is not a barrier, it's underpinning. 3.3m is no an arbitrary number. I imagine someone specialising in clay soil subsidence has done something along the lines of a retrospective NHBC calculation and decided 3.3m is the appropriate foundation depth. As purchaser I would be lookign for a guarantee that the work has been carried out in accordance with the specification, and an indemnity from whoever specified the works.

True... but you can be super-smug when you see the answer. If you got it right, that is. Then you can post 'I knew that'. Also no point in that.

Little Jelly Ear on Friday popping out of the opening of a dead bud on Ash.

Just for fun, what's this a picture of? If you get it, keep it to yourself, so others have to guess unprompted. I'll put the answer up in a day or two.

Liability - Gary has pointed you in the right direction about liability, NTSG does this issue to death. But it's simple. Check the trees regularly and you have nothing to worry about as long as you act on any concerns you find that could reasonably cause harm to neighbours or visitors. Get someone in to do it if you feel you're not up to it or theres's s specialist issue beyond your knowledge, and act on any advice. Insurance - damage to 3rd party property is usually covered by building insurance, as long as you haven't been negligent by not acting on tree risks. If your policy doesn't over it, get one that does. It shouldn't cost much more, and you don't need to flag up trees unless the insurer asks you to in the proposal form. Ove rht e years I have seen policies covering less and less, so unless you pay for a decent policy you're in for surprises if you claim against a cheapo policy. Power lines - the standard 'wayleave' form power companies is quite simple, probably too simple. You let it have cables in your airspace (whether for your property or for elsewhere, whether for money or for free) and there are two key points of agreement. The company can "fell or lop in a woodman like manner any tree or hedge on the Property which obstructs or interferes with the Works". And you must not "do or cause or permit to be done on the Property anything likely to cause damage or interference of any kind to the Works". This leaves the question of damage from falling trees open to resolution by common law i.e. the answer is not immediately clear. Generally if your trees cause damage (as with general liability as discussed above) and you foresaw it or should have, and did nothing to stop it damaging cables, it would be your fault. If in doubt, get BT or power company out to advise. They might say it's your problem, but they might drop cables temportarily to make felling easy, or switch lines off for a day to make it safe. BT might just fix a breakage on the spot, because (in my experience) it's more hassle to report it as a breach of wayleave adn get its solicitors onto you. I have never known a leccy company to take that relaxed view, possibly because the costs and logistics of repair are bigger.

I am currently hunting for something similar. Depends what is meant by 'mature'. Biggest can get is 13m high 150mm dbh, but I am looking for a particular species and supply is limited or non-existent. All sorts of issues arising about digging up, moving, planting and either underground guying or aerial guying. In theory you can get really big stuff, but in practice they may need a tree spade so big that it has to be brought over from Germany for a couple of days. Possibly even bring the trees over too if you want fully (well, early- ) mature. Hilliers have been the best bet so far. Quite a decent choice of 10m specimens. Much easier to get mature for species that won't even reach 10m when mature. Easier to get cultivar than straight natives. PM me if you want to swop notes.

I think the common name is Chinese Thuja or Chinese Arborvitae.

I am going from the east edge of Glasgow so if you can make it that far you can have a lift from there. Somewhere like Hamilton? Am sending you a message with mobile phone number if required.

I misinterpreted 'no one would argue'. So I now don't disagree, it is an encroachment and the tree belongs where it came from. If it roots, though, the new growth that derives sustenance from the neighbour's soil is his, after the point where he notices it or could reasonably expect to have noticed it. Then if he tolerates it, it's his. If severed from the original tree it may carry on with his accceptance. If not, no harm done. And I don't think he can demand that the original tree owner does not sever it and cut off it's supply from original tree. I don't really understand the physiology of layering roots, but it may be that the vascular flows to and from the new roots are plumbed primarily if not exclusively into the new growth. It would then be one of the 'branch attachment' enigma questions about what happens to the competition for cambial growth between new vascular growth and old vascular growth from the original tree.

Nice analogy. Another advantage is that the report doesn't need to be redone every year.

I'd argue with that. It's an encroachment that the neighbour could self-abate, or if it was actionable could insist on it being removed.

Strictly speaking the client is liable (or you, if you didn't adhere to the spec), but in practice what is the measure of the neighbour's loss? This sort of pettiness has existed since the beginnign of time, at least long enough for the romans to have a phrase for it De minimis non curat lex, the law does not concern itself with trivialities. This is still alive and well as a firm principle of common law. Even if the neighbour was allowed to petition the court, the award of damages would be too small (de minimis) to award and the court would probably not award costs either, due to wasting the courts' time with childish nonsense.

No need for fancy courses. One tree, one development proposal, one english language, I'd get to the point and say it how it is, and £800 would make me feel guilty of extortion, plus I'd last about a year in my local market charging that much for a couple of hours' work. £800 to say in writing that according to the British Standard the development won't compromise the tree if you put a fence far enough round it? With a plan showing a circle round the tree? That's taking the p**s. If I was comfortable making things sound more complicated than they are I'd have been a lawyer.

The council have since come back saying that they still want a complete report which I'm told will cost £800 - even though the development is outside of the RPA. Is this an unreasonable request from the council? It is quite an expense considering the development is outside the RPA. Thank you! Probably a report is justified, if nothing but to specify protection of the tree from builders, who are not the most delicate of people around trees.

SHOULD BE a lot of intelligence, insight and consideration that goes into them. I have seen a few that are absolute rubbish, but the Council doesn't check on the arbs competence so the reports are fairly meaningless. I can see why there is a lot of resentment by clients and architects, because a lot of these reports are shelf-fillers that probably weren't needed. But it's not for the Council to say the tree will be OK in the first instance, it is for the applicant and his consultants. I did one last week for 80 trees. Thorough, fully referenced, helpful, explanatory report with CAD plans. £500. £800 for a few trees is possibly sponsoring inefficiency. Get a few more quotes I'd say. I'll do it for £300 if it's anywhere near me.

That's exactly what happened in this case, and I told the public body that my tender woud be cheaper if the insurance requirements were reduced to a realistic and proportionate level. I think they got the point but weren't able to modify the tender at that late stage or accept variant tenders.

Thant's the problem, it is currently covered by my PLI, but the premiums are based on turnover, most of which for me comes from climbing inspections and bat surveys, yet the peremiums don't differentiate between turnover from inspections and turnover from dismantling some 20T Beech over a public road. I'll take up your suggestion and investigate insurance from another sector like eco consultancy.

I have a similar question. Apart from when I am subbing, I only climb for aerial inspections and bat inspections. I have PII cover anyway. My broker has offered PL Insurance for this, and a main client is insisting this be £5M cover. The premia are ridiculous, and I just can't imagine how you could cause harm or damage of £5M while climbing armed with nothing sharper than a pencil. Yes you could knock a hanging branch off and hurt someone if you were a complete idiot, but it just seems like risk aversion by client and insurer. Anybody found a better way to get PL cover? As soon as the policy mentions arb, the premium goes crazy. Sorry Mr Oz I can't imagine what sort of insurance you need for teaching. It's probably akin to ELI, and a broker might be able to clarify this for you. I ahve found Lucetts very helpful, although they can't get round the bonkers PLI premia for surveys only.

Definitely Parrotia

Refreshing to see customer and client both willing to shun the obvious 'firewood' advice. That looks like it could be quite a soggy site, and that ight account for the rotted roots, which in turn would account for the failure. I'd have been tempted to reduce or thin its crown very severely, as it has possibly lost 3/4 of its rooting and most of its natural support. If it survives at full height you might never wean it off its new artificial support.

It was supposedly very easy to make explosives from Sodium Chlorate, and I read that that was the main reason for taking it out of public availability. No point in using ecoplugs as an alternative to glyphosate, since their active ingredient IS glyphosate.

Another difference in Scotland, it's not a criminal offence here not to comply.