daltontrees

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.

OK all comments to date by everyone don't apply to cases in Scotland. I don'yt think this is a grey area really. In all parts of the UK except Sctland it is specified that a High Hedge notice cannot require reduction below 2m or removal of the hedge. Someone early on decided that excessive reductions that would result int eh death of teh ehdge constituted 'removing' the hedge, and so the rule has evolved and stuck that you can't kill a hedge even if the resultnt height at which the hedge wouldn't die is way way above the action height calculated by the english method. One of the first ever appeal decisions did just that. In Scotland there is no such stipulation in the Act. Nor has there been any decision at appeal that so stipulates. I had a case where a line of Larch constituting a hedge were 23m high and had to be reduced to 6m, in effect to bare stems. The reporter was a retired solicitor, and one of the clearest thinking Reporters I have met (possibly the only one), and I believe his decision was thoroughly justified and compliant with the Act. So, in Scotland, the action required to comply with a HH notice can kill a hedge. My personal view is that since a fence of 2m does not require any statutory approval there is no point in mucking about with smaller hedges or loss of hedges completely; the hedge owner can simply replace it with a 2m fence.

What country are you in? There is more than one answer.

What problem?

Erm, no. RPA is the 2 dimensional representation of a 3 dimensional volume of soil. Encroachment in an RPA of any sort should be justified, but loss of volume is a direct removal of a tree's roots and capacity to survive. Glad to see for the sake of the trees that the impact has been reduced since but building soakaways would merit separate consideration including concessions already made by the Council. Too many unknowns in your case, can't be bothered specuating again.

I once took a tree down which was dead and was supported entirely with ivy. Ivy that had killed the tree orweakened it through lack of light to teh point where it had succumbed to some or other infection. So working ackwards from that point, there may have been a time when it was still alive but so weak that it couldn't have stood up without ivy support. If someone wanted to retaina tree beyond the point where it couldn't support itself, then ivy could arguably be doing the job for a while. But when doing risk assessments, i.e. when there are people or property to be harmed or damaged, I would never rely on ivy to justify the retention of a tree which in any other respect was a less than acceptable risk. I wopuld not expose clients to that sort of legal liability, as I think it should be indefensible. In reality, although ivy is woody, it's not a conventional wood. Ivy rarely has to support itelf in tension or compression to any significant extent. Its properties are therefore at best unpredictable, at worst predictably poor (holding up bottles of vodka excluded). So if your tree is being supported by ivy, chopping the ivy will cause the tree to fail. Chop one, expect to be picking the other up shortly. If you don't know if the ivy is supporting it, assume it is. If you think it's not supporting it, sever it to give the tree a chance, you'll be in no worse a position than now. It all comes down to where it is relative to people and property. That's it with ivy, you can't ever say for sure if it's helping, and if it is it's a false friend. I've had a case of a birch splitting its bark (really irrecoverably) due to the additional low spring sunlight. For surveys I usually specify severing it straight away and letting it die on the tree for a year or so. The loss of ivy leaves is often enough to allow sight of forks and cavities a year later, and if it does need to be removed when dead it comes off relatively easily. Ivy holds on partly by water-absorbing tendrils, so yes it does absorb from water hitting it or running down the bark of the tree. The tendrils when ripped off creates and releases lots of dust, i hate having to remove it. I didn't know it was toxic too. Once I get my microscope going I will get some sections of ivy under it and see what the structure is compared to load-bearing wood. Gary Prentice and I are currently debating the merits of stains and filters that might show up cellulose and lignin content and cell wall make-up.

The people who are adamant that ivy will not kill a tree must either be blind or not been looking at trees for very long. Ivy, good for habitat, bad for trees. Every photon of light that ivy absorbs is a photon not going into the tree's energy reserves. The ivy creeps out a little further every year. It makes development of dormant or adventitious buds nearly impossible for a tree, and when natural breakages occur the tree cannot react normally to pruduce new structure below a break that is already ivy clad. Infested trees often just have a few twigs at the extemities. Only elongation sees off light starvation. So stems end up too narrow for their length, breakages ensue. The downward spiral continues. Ivy creates wind resistance in winter when deciduous trees would otherwise have greater chances of surviving strong winds. Etc. etc.

I am needing an extra body on site to help complete a tree inventory. Person has to be able to identify common tree species in winter (a bit of knowledge of scientific names would help, but the species will be recorded by common name), take a few basic measurements and plot them on my GPS handheld device. Working day likely to be quite short due to lack of light. Can maybe pick up and drop off someone if they are between Glasgow and Erskine or near Erskine. Private message with your phone number here on Arbtalk if interested, please.

If anybody in the glasgow area is going to the AGM and wants a lift or is offering one, please let me know.

It's not that bad.

You can get decent images by pointing your phone camera down the microscope lens. Yes my pictures on the 4th page of this thread were taken with a camera pointed down the eyepiece. Focusing and alignment at higher magnifications can be a real problem though.

Big question. Depends what you are wanting to look at. That looks like a decent microscope, so you have loads of options. Near the beginning of this thread I tried to explain the difference between reflected and transmitted light microscopy, but maybe I was too technical about it. A simpler way to explain it is that reflected light is like looking at a painting and transmittred light is like loooking ata stained glass window. For the latter you need thin thin samples, and stains can be indispensable, as can be a microtome. And carrots (more on that another time). But if you are keen to get going then reflected light is easy. You can literally put anything under the microscope that will fit, and focus on it. There's a lot to be said for just shovign stuff under, seeing it ina whole new way abut also thinking 'that's not quite as good as it could be, what can I do to improve it? Better light, better direction of light, flattening it with a coverslip? Just go for it. Really fgood easy starting points that are rewarding are insects, postage stamps, leaf surfaces, feathers, fungal pore surfaces, christmas tree needles off the floor, old film negatives, fungal spores, the edge of a ruler (which is good because it gives a true idea of how close you get with a microscope). Anything is worth a try. Reflected light is easiest, tehre's little preparation required, but it will only be good at low magnification. Just go for it. Transmittee light is a world of pain, frustration, expense, endless extra equipment and materials, squandered time. I hope I can get to the point soon of helping people get into transmitted light microscopy (can I call it TLM for short, and call reflected light microscopy RLM?) but I think it will need me to get my microcope out and take pics and make videos (coming soon). RLM, a trip to the best art gallery you will ever visit. A camera is for sharing, nice eventually but not at all needed for understanding.

Can anyone help with the ID of this shrub? This is the only picture I have. Bright greeen stems, acuninate leaves. Flowering here in December.