daltontrees

Excellent! Made my evening that did.

Anyone interested should read what was recorded about the meeting. https://bristoltreeforum.org/2017/07/05/bristol-trees-in-crisis-notes-of-04-july-public-meeting/ I see a representative of the Sheffield debacle was present. Personally I would conclude that the Council's decision is short-sighted, irresponsible and ill-informed. But councilllors who vote omn budgets may not be there in 3 or 5 or 7 years when weak pollard attachments fall on cars and people, when epicormics hide the sudden failure of trees form Kretzschmaria and when retrospective claims for subsidence start coming in. I only hope for the sake of the Council that it has consulted with its risk managers (insurers) before making this decision. It's premia must go up, and since insurers are not in the business of making losses or insuring just for fun, the premia should go up be more than the cost of claims. I think the real misery, though, is going to be for residents whose gardens and houses could be plunged into darkness by unpollarded trees. Since this is not a 'nuisance' that they can do anything about except pay for repollarding themselves, I can see why this sad decision might be justified by the Council. Don't use public money when you can make neighbours so desperate for basic light that they pay for tree works themselves. I hope the first claim against the Council is for damage to an inanimate object rather than a person, and it would be nice if the decision makers were found responsible for failing to take professional advice on the implications. I've never been in Bristol in my life, but I still find this decision and the way it has been taken really pathetic. The industry knows by now what is right and wrong in urban tree management, but the bean counters always override it. Just another symptom of society in the UK.

Bristol Tree Forum website says "We are a group of volunteers dedicated to increasing the tree canopy cover of Bristol." At least they're going to get that.

Yes but not as clear as if you had answered the rest of the questions. Otherwise, like everyone else will probably conclude, I'd say there seems to be no reason why the tree can't just be removed, if that's what the owner wants.

Bunny ears are what you get if you don't put cuts in below the hinge on leaners. I never thought to give the cuts a special name.

I agree whith others saying that more information is needed. I definitely wouldn't agree with some of the advice you have received here. At best unhelpful, at worst recklessly ill-informed. Is there TPO? Is the tree in a Conservation Area? Has an application or notification been submitted formally asking to be allowed to work on the tree? If so, has it been refused? When? How big is the tree and what species? Were engineering allowances made for its presence in the design and build of the extension? If not, why not? Were they followed? If not why not, and who decided not to? Are there conditions in a consent for the extension relating to the tree? Where in the country is it? Those are just some of the preliminary questions.

I'm sworn to th BK range of varnishes which come in range of fluorescent luminous colours, creating a useful hi-viz effect that lets you know where the ends of your arms are at all times. Saved many a finger, it has.

My first reaction to this thread was that it would diminish the art form, but if it's for selling nicknacks to leisure shoppers in garden centres, then frankly it doesn't matter what tools or machines are used. What I think would be really naff would be programming a computer to deliberately carve things to look like they have been done with a chainsaw. That's close to cheating customers. I have been most impresed by chainsaw carving when it has been in-situ on a stump or stem, ideally using the natural form and grain imaginatively. I don't think anything will replace that, these seem to be one-offs and peple seem to be happy to pay a premium for their unique artistic worth. Mass produced mobile pieces and wooden boxes might be Ford Fiestas, but the car analogy cannot be used for the one-off in-situ sculpture. If anything it's like getting a personally customised car built for you in your home using your own materials, and quite rightly that will be expensive and special. Meantime if anyone can part consumers from their cash down the garden centre, as far as I am concerned computer-made wooden things can sit on display right alongside the garden gnomes and plastic planters.

That was my standby question...

Taking it as read that fungal pathogens in the same sector of a tree willl normally ward off infections by other fungi, what would be interesting would be whether australe and resinaceum are so genetically similar that can have some form of co-existence in the same host.

Are you correlating the pronounced buttressing to reaction to the fungal infection?

I had never heard of that one, and it does look like the pictures, but quoting from Wikipedia (which is not always right) "The only known population, found in 1991, consists of 200–250 plants growing on the Monti Iblei area, in Buccheri, in southeast Sicily near Syracuse." One of the rarest trees in the world. Wouldn't it be lovely of there was an outbreak in Yorkshire?

I would have said Zelkova carpinifolia, especially the roughness of the leaves. I recall Nothofagus obliqua lobes are more rounded and irregular. But I don't know for sure.

It's not clear if you're tasking about the qualifications of the head of the team or the tree surveyors. If it's the head of the team, there's no particular reason why they should have the qualifications necessary to do tree surveys.

Collins Guide again, to give balanced view. Orchard apple leaves "oblong, large (to 12cm), with small irregular teeth; dark, rather matt and variably crumpled." That last bit I find to be useful as a first hint to it being Malus domestica. Pear leaves are leathery by comparison, and as someone mentioned have a pointy tip.

Whatever you decide, probably wise to precee it with "Notify the Council that I intend to ...." Apart from the severing of ivy, which may make more difference to light anad windfirmness than any pruning. Don't know how you could advise on risk until you do that anyway and wait for it to die back or remove it.

Yellow card.

Yes it is.

Close-up

I never give up! This picture of pears (so there is no doubt) has a leaf top right showing what I suspect is meant by 'minutely-rounded'. To be honest it's not a characteristic I would use to identify pear. Agreed apple tends to have a broken margin, but what I believe is called 'serrated'.

I have nio view on this, just was saying what Collins says.

Collins Guide says common pear leaf is 'minutely round-toothed'. As in the OP's picture.

I think everyone else has given up on this thread. In the situation you describe, I owuld expect the blame to be apportioned between the neighbour and his contractor. The apportionment would bdepend on what the neighbour had instructed the contractor to do. If he said "excavate to the bounbdary, no matter what you come across, and don't tell me how it went" he would probably take all the blame. If he said "excavate, no matter what you come across, and tell me afterwards how it went" then the neighbour would learn of the roots and should warn the tree owner. If he said "excavate to the boundary" the contractor would be expected to find the roots and stop, or at least have a duty to warn of the impending tree issues. There's no such thing as a lay contractor. Not knowing about trees can not be a valid excuse for negligence, a reasonable land owner would employ someone competent and follow their advice, and would be expected to take professional advice about a nearby tree whether he knows about trees or not. That's my view anyway.

Now here's a thing...

If the first of those two points is meant to be a summary of my perspective, then I think you have misunderstood me a little. Of course the encroached party has a duty of care. It is how he exercises it that matters. Firstly recognising that abatement will create a hazard. Secondly considering whtehr there is any less mischevious way he can gain enjoyment of his land. Thirdly bringing that to the attention of the tree owner. Fourthly allowing a generous period of time for the tree owner to remove the potential risk. This may not be as you suggest absolute absolution, but I would rahter have this duscussion before the event and I am not persuaded that the law can be interpreted any other way, because there are firmer authorities that refute any notion that roots create themselves a right to occupy encroached land than there are that suggest that considerate self-abatement should be constrained by fears of prosecution for damaging an encroaching tree. My abater is deviod of mischief and is very different from the careless driver.