daltontrees

It appears by its language to apply to trees uprooted or destroyed by the actions of someone (i.e. prohibited acts), but not to natural uprooting or destruction.

I am interested purely on a theoretical basis. I don't really see nuisance beeing that bad a can of worms. If someone has a legal right of access and a tree blocks it, the tree is depriving them of enjoying that right, so it's nuisance. No appplication required for works to tehe xtent that are needed to abate the nuisance. Not an excuse to remove the whole tree of course.

But if it blows over and is not dead, then s.206 surely doesn't apply to it? And if it is blocking a legal access or is now occupying someone else's garden it is a legal nuisance and can be removed under exception?

done

Yes my comment had a target painted on it. But let's stick to her reluctance to incur higher insurance premia...

Let insurers deal with it and involve them as soon as possible. Keep notes and dates of all discussions and events and dated photographs. Also I suggest notifying your purchasing solicitor, as the previous owners may have had knowledge of the issues and may have been under an obligation to disclose them. If nothing else they should check your purchase survey report. The Council's position is generally right but you don't know the history. In any event, a tree report would be better commissioned by your insurers. Your girlfriend's concerns are irrational. Not claiming on insurance makes no sense. Not disclosing stuff to insurers could invalidate your insurance. Is it going to get better all by itself? Is it going to go a way? No? Start doing something about it.

Plastic frames are hopeless, they last about a month until they are sat on or get dropped. It's metal frames or nothing for me. Plastic lenses don't last and they are easily scuffed but it's worth it not to have glass shatter into your eye. I get through about 4 pairs a year.

They're not going to get better. Are thye providing current benefits that mean it's worth keeping them for as long as possible, including with a height reduction? If not, worth considering programming them in for removal and replanting? Please bear in mind that P.s. often follows infection by Armillaria, especially on former broadleaf sites, so maybe think about Armillaria resistant species (of which there are very few). If tehre are wothwhile benefits, it all comes down to detailed assessments tree-by-tree. Lonsdale says to treat infected wood as if it is a void. Als consider where the fruiting is, it can have bearing on which points might fail first.

Nah! Nah, nah, nah.

You can do bat PRF scoping surveys following BS 5896 with only bat awareness training and endoscopy, but you'd need to be qualified and kitted out to climb too. And you have to back off if you cannot reasonably rule out roosting. It's good for when planners ask for bat survys on ridiculously small or yong stuff, and it can be done as a fairly inexpensive bolt-on to BS 5837 or risk surveys. I wouldn't seek out bat survey work on its own though. Probably should, as ecologists froth at the mouth at the very mention of bats and next thing the client's out £1k for all sorts of fancy surveys that could have been ruled out with a torch and binoculars.

I agree with JAG63, contect is everything.

Someone's house, possibly their biggest investment in life and the roof over their heads, is subsiding. It might cost ten grand to fix. They're probably worried sick. Their insurer have taken up the case for them. The tree owner is now worried too and naturally wants to keep the tree. It might cost him thousands if he's unlucky. So he registers for Arbtalk to be able to get some reassurances, presumably thinking that professionally minded and helpful people might be found here. But the second bit of advice he gets here is to piss on the neighbour's carpet anonymously. Sick, and in no situation a proportionate or appropriate action. Seriously, get a grip of yourself. It's you that needs to lighten up (as well as grow up).

Leave it to the insurers. Seriously, don't try and get involved. But here are some considerations. Beech grows slowly at maturity. Mitchell's rule is not always applicable. Since we don't know location, existence of shrinkable clays would be speculation. It doesn't matter that the tree came first. It doesn't matter that the foundations are already inadequate. The TPO shouldn't change things, if the Council tries to get involved in preventing a solution it will take on responsibility for future damage. Pruning won't stop subsidence unless extreme and repeated. If there is tree related subsidence removal would probably cause heave but you wouldn't be responsible for heave damage. Things aren't black and white. You might be only partly responsible. Leave it to the experts. It's a legal minefield. I know what I would do but that's irrelevant.

Idiot! I am sometimes embarrased by the arb indistry when stuff like this is said to members of the public. Grow up.

It's possible tha the bark split has propogated upwards from the nail. I have noticed in Acer platanoides that the bark is really really tight over winter and that even tagging it with a single nail can cause it to split upwards and downwards. I've even seen a tree killed by a tag nail becuase the split extended a metre each way and decay set in. If that nail in the picture is into the wood, the first thing i'd do is remove it.

Yes, walls 1 to 3 are passive. Only wall 4 is an active response to wounding. As Shigo says, pruning is wounding.

Yes decayed and hollow are different things where stem buckling is a possibility. Decayed material will prevent it as long as it's not too soft. If tis is Dryads Saddle it hasn't got to the mushy stage yet. Can't say whether it should have been removed, since the crown is gone and there is no information on Targets. Dacayed roots would definitely be a bigger worry than stem failure.

Agreed, there's always other factors, which can be more important than strength loss through hollowing. It stmulates debate, which is good, but is followed blindly by some as if it is a rule, which is a bad thing. Inserted is what I think is a slightly more intuitive graph of the same subject matter. It shows that as t/R ratio decreases the cross sectional area doesn't decrease so quicky and the strength decreases even more slowly. So at Mattheck's fabled t/R = 0.3, half the cross sectional area is still present and 3/4 of the strength (measured by 'modulus') is still there. The strength doesn't drop to half until only 15% of the stem remains! In reality, stem buckling will probably cause failure first before tensile breakage.

I've never seen any publication dealing with this. Compared to stems, limb growth is partly determined by the amount of woody material needed to support cantilevered loads, determined by limb extension, angle, wind loads and crown damping. It is scientific fact that conifers and broadleafs do this in very different ways too. I suspect the closer they become to vertical the more they will behave like stems. Conifers actively encourage a vertical habit for dominant limbs by putting on extra material on the underside of the limb attachment point. I'd say it's nearly impossible to generalise.

It's pretty basic. Just 5 words. "in the interests of amenity" Tree preservation orders E+W 198 Power to make tree preservation orders. E+W (1) If it appears to a local planning authority that it is expedient in the interests of amenity to make provision for the preservation of trees or woodlands in their area, they may for that purpose make an order with respect to such trees, groups of trees or woodlands as may be specified in the order. (2) An order under subsection (1) is in this Act referred to as a “tree preservation order”. (3 to 4) revoked (5) A tree preservation order may be made so as to apply, in relation to trees to be planted pursuant to any such conditions as are mentioned in section 197(a), as from the time when those trees are planted. (6) revoked (7) This section shall have effect subject to— (a) section 39(2) of the M1Housing and Planning Act 1986 (saving for effect of section 2(4) of the M2Opencast Coal Act 1958 on land affected by a tree preservation order despite its repeal); and (b) section 15 of the Forestry Act 1967 (licences under that Act to fell trees comprised in a tree preservation order). (8) revoked

Yes this can be hard to understand. But think of it this way. When wood is growing it might be typically 50% moisture (but depends on species). Your calculation so far ony shows that the wood has lost 38% of its weight. Call it 40% for round numbers. IF, and only if, you know that it was 50% moisture at the start, you could say that it's weight is now made up of 50% of its original weight in wood and 10% of its original weight in water. The ratio of these two 10:50 is 100% x 10/50 = 20%. That's the moisture content. But, you can never really know if the original 50% is right. It might be 55%, it might be 45%. This would give you different moisture content figures. (18% or 22%). The only way to be sure is to oven-dry the piece, get it's 0% moisture weight and then let it rehydrate and weigh it again. But who would ever do that? I tried to calibrare a pile of cedar once. I found that different parts of the same ring had quite significantly different moisture contents. It's pretty futile. Measurement by meter is a different matter. It goes on basis that electrical conductivity of wood increases in proportion to moisture content. No calculation or calibration is required. So, weight loss is is a good indication of water loss but tells you nothing absolute.

Looks like Oyster (Pleurotus ostreatus). Only feeds on deadwood. Looks like good adaptive growth of wood around an old branch wound. No way of knowing depth, from this photo. Leave it alone!

It doesn't matter that it's a commercial client. What matters is that because it's 'non-domestic' it's probably not in a garden and therefore doesn't have the 'garden' exemption from need for Felling Permission (Scotland) or License (E&W)

I agree Indian Horse Chestnut

"They gave you permission thereby consenting to the risk that harm might be caused." No, that is not a sound legal point.