daltontrees

I wouldn't even go that far. If you state it was safe in your opinion a few years ago, the owners could pursue a line of argument now that the defect that caused it to fail now was likely present a few years ago too and ... gotcha on negligence. There was a bit of this kind of thing in the recent Cavanagh v Witley (and another) case. It would suffice, surely, for OP to be honest and say tre was assessed informally, hazards identifed and risks discussed but the owners decided not to proceed? As the saying goes 'the law operates best when it is subservient to the honesty of the case'.

VTA does not assess risks, it identifies hazards. The hazards and their likelihood of materialising need to be weighed up against what or who might be hit and hte severity of harm or damage, and then consideration given by the occupier to tolerance of that risk and the amenity value attached to the tree.

Stagecoach v Hinds and Steel 2014. Correct, poor Mr Steel had only been there previously to work on tree, Stagecoach tried to show he had a 'duty to warn' but like the landowner he had no cause to inspect the base of the tree.

Cornus and Sorbus are so distantly related that grafting or hybridisation is unimaginable. They are both Eudicots but that's where the similarity ends. Compatible grafts or hybrids across genera are rare enough, and between Orders are extremely rare. Simlarly compatible grafting. I suspect a simpler explanation. The photo at the top of page 2 that suggests a twin stemmed tree forking at ground level has diffrerent bark on the two stems. It maybe that there are two separate trees growing so closely together that they appear to be the one tree but they are neverrthless two trees. The remaining pictures show what looks indeed like torminalis leaves growing from Sorbus barked stems and Cornus leaves growing from Cornus barked stems. Two trees, I'd say. If not, this is the scientific discovery of the decade and would send international geneticists back to primary school in search of their sanity. AS if say a bat had been successfully cross-bred with a snake.

Not great pics of the buds, but that was my first thought too.

Sort of a happy ending. Reputation intact, fee paid, scrappy trees gone and replaced for longer term in hoopefully unmolested position. Presumably developer happy too, he got away with it.

NOt so great having the back of the gob and the backcut at pretty much exactly the same level, leaving nowhere for the hinge to ... hinge.

Aaaah, I see. Sort of makes sense but sort of makes me want to run away screaming. Clearly it's a subject considerably larger than my brain.

Very uinteresting, and I'd love to have reliable way of telling australe and applanatum apart. The other Ganoderma species seem to be less frequent up here, but I'm always on the lookout. I'll collect a few spores next time and see if I can get to grips with teh sizes. The Andy Overall article gives his sizes as follows • Ganoderma applanatum spores were 5.8–7.0 x 4.5–5.2 μm. • Ganoderma australe spores were 9.0–10.0 x 6.2–7.1 μm. And then I'm looking at your last photo and thinking, those spores aren't definitely one or the other species. No exospore obvious either. Which are they?

I have been told that scottish spruce is not suitable for structural work, as it has grown too quickly. I believe a lot of the structural spruce we use over here comes from Sweden which as you indicate is growing in harsher conditions, more slowly. Maybe the scottish stuff can be used OK if it is of bigger dimensions that an imported equivalent. Dunno...

This thread has descended rapidly into a series of gentle rants about the CAP, farming, Brexity etc. which is a shame because the question originally asked is an interesting one. And the answer I think is that the expense of looking after TPO'd trees shouldn't be borne by the public purse. The only difference between an ordinary tree and a TPO'd tree is that the latter's owner needs to ask first before working on it. The cost of asking is nil, although it may take up time. The answer is not always 'no'. Most owners of most TPo'd trees would want to keep them anyway and would have therefore to pay for teh maintenance anyway. Why should the public pay for that? So there are relatively few cases where a tree is TPO'd AND the owner wants to do work to it AND that work is only allowed under conditions that make the work more expensive to do than if there was no TPO. That's the only situation where there is any argument that the public should pay that extra cost. TPOs don't oblige an owner to maintain a tree. As such, there's no ongoing cost except if keeping a tree at a sensible scale is the only alternative to removing the tree, an act that it not allowed under TPO law. And that, I reckon, is the situation that gave rise to TPO law in the first place. The real cost to an owner of a TPO'd tree is it may prevent him maximising use and value and enjoyment of his property. But that's a different compensation debate...

I had 130 year old scots pine floorbords and joists in my last house. It was probably a high spec house when built, but there was no sign at all of the joists or boards deflecting. About 20 years ago the previous owners had let some idiot landscaper breach the damp proofing and the joists in contact with the damp stone had had to be replaced. But the rest were bone dry and as good as new.

Great user name there, Quercusbetrayer!

I had just such a case earlier in the week, the B Listed (= english II) church is in a Conservation Area, the tree now growing out of the bell tower masonry is big enough to be protected by CA legislation but is not protected by Listed Building legislation.

I can't speak for England, but in Scotland you would be right. I had this come up in a recent case and I phoned Historic Scotland to get absolute reassurance that listing did not confer protection on the trees in the curtilege. I was told I was correct and that separate legislation existed to protect trees i.e. CAs and TPOs.

Hah! That's only an air rifle pellet. Mine I think was a .303. Good picture though. Shows how much damage can be done to a living tree with one of those pellets.

I cut a bullet in half once, it was buried in a tree. Oddly, not much damage to the saw.

Try [ame=https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Diagnosis-ill-health-trees-Research-Amenity-Trees-Strouts/0900978589/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_0/255-7672603-4220429?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=0G257E34Z1A4ETKQH1ZC]Diagnosis of Ill-Health in Trees, 7th Impression 2013: No. 2: Research for Amenity Trees: Amazon.co.uk: R. G. Strouts, Arboricultural Association, T. G. Winter, The Stationery Office: 9780900978586: Books[/ame]

The answer is fairly straightforward in England. The 2012 Regulations include this 17.—(1) Where an application is made to the authority for consent under an order in accordance with regulation 16 the authority may— (a) grant consent under the order, either unconditionally or subject to any such condition as is specified in paragraph (2); or (b) refuse consent under the order. (2) The conditions referred to in paragraph (1) are— (a) conditions within subsection (4) of section 202D(a) (tree preservation regulations: consent for prohibited activities); (b) conditions requiring approvals to be obtained from the person giving the consent; © conditions specifying the standard to which the works for which consent has been given must be carried out; and (d) conditions specifying that the works may be carried out on multiple occasions or within a specified time period only or both. (3) Where an application relates to an area of woodland, the authority shall grant consent so far as accords with the practice of good forestry, unless they are satisfied that the granting of consent would fail to secure the maintenance of the special character of the woodland or the woodland character of the area. So, in short, yes. They can. They probably should.

I'd go along with Paul on this, it accompanies tree decline rahter than causes it. The pictures suggest the blacknes is following long vertical splits in the bark. Whatever caused those could be the true problem. HAve the trees had a lot of ivy removed off them or been exposed to sun by other trees nearby being removed recently?

Unusual use of chainsaw, unusual job. SHed is getting int eh way of my proposed extension so I cut it in half. The walls were shiplap, so I buzzed down them every 15' with the chainsaw while the walls were still up. Instant kindling once I knocked it off with a hammer. Wall went from intact to frame in 3 minutes. Job done.

As Gary indicated, light is only the dominant factor in determining growth direction when the only way is up.

Ahh, shades of grey. I've seen this situation befoore, and applicants (clients of mine) hav ebeen at pains to submit and have stamped as approved indicative layouts of developments but LAs always treat them as just indicative of density or massing or other generalities. For a particular access point t be acknowledged as implicit in the consent, the application has to be clear that the specific access position requires approval even as part of an outline consent. When this happens, the LA can then request all sorts of additional technical support for the application, like traffic impact and visibility splays. I have genreally found LAs to be reluctant to take mixed detail/outline apps like that. So I'd still be wary of implied tree removal assumptions. The LA may indeed anticipate loss of the tree but may think that its replacement under conditions is only a detailed consent (reserved) matter not requiring express mention now.

Even your statement that "the fact the tree is effecting the wall" is strong. Surely only a fact when proven cause and effect? "Tree Roots in the Built Environment" gives figures for suggested distances of trees of various diameters from light structures like walls. There's also guidance in the 2016 NHBC pubication about vegetation, structures and soils. Generally the remedy is an engineer's remit, but there's no point suggesting a remedy that does not diagnose the cause and ensure that it does not cause damage to recur. So it's part arb, part engineering.

I don't understand this question. Maybe suffice to say that this is a miniscule shrub-like individual of a species which the OP wants to develop into an open-grown form.