daltontrees

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.

This is fairly clear-cut. Outline consent does not trump a TPO. A TPO'd tree can only be removed from a development site under exemption if the removal is immediately required for implementation of the consent. Since outline consent cannot be implemented without detailed consent, it can never be the basis for tree removal. It's not for the LA to think ahead to detail before granting outline consent. It's for the applicant to demonstrate that the detail can be achieved at detailed consent application stage. There's no rationale for tree removal on the basis of there being an implied inevitability of a tree loss in due course.

And do it very soon.

It should self-correct. BUt I don't believe that light has much to do with it. Most trees are geotropic, meaning they sense which way is up and which is down. Light will reward buds developing on the sunniest side, but that's not the same as the tendency of trees too extend upwards. The sun and stored reserves of energy power this each spring but the direction is regulated by gravity. If anything, I'd plant it with the lean away from the sun to strengthen the weaker side. Probably best not to fight the existing vertical elements. Planting it as vertical as possible will cause least hormonal confusion and in time the stem will thicken to carry an ever-increasing crown, overwriting the original lean on the basal stem. When replanting, tease out all the roots as much as possible. Lean often develops due to young roots circling the inside of an inadequately sized pot, and the strangling effects of this can continue even after repotting and/or planting out. It might take years, but with some species it is a time-bomb. Stake as low as possible, and lower or remove stake ties as young as the tree wil stand. Don't let the tree roots become addicted to artificial support. Good root development is stimulated partly by wind forces.

I use a Trimble with Pocket GIS and PT Mapper. Very straightforward. I've used the full ezytreev, overkill for most things, it's best for management. I didn't like the risk assessment part of the software. But I believe it can be supplied with QTRA software, which gets rid of that problem if you are QTRA savvy. Or you can put together a good risk assessment survey with PT Mapper using the Survey Writer that comes free with PT Mapper. Still need Pocket GIS though. Pocked GIS cost me £500. PT Mapper Pro £1,000 inc Survey Writer. I have an old Trimble Geo (£500 second hand). This set-up does everything I need, especially BS5837 surveys and reports with mapping.

Mr Arborist will keep you right, but the generalities are these. The terminology being used by the Council is from BS5837. As well as planning permission, TPO consent may be needed if trees are affected. The survey is just that, what trees, where, how big and how far roots ar elikely to exten and how much rooting is needed to maintain the viability of the trees. The Impact Assessment is the effect the proposals could have on the trees. The Method Statement is what special procedures are needed to avoid or minimise damage to the trees and roots. There's an in-between stage. Once the vulnerability of the trees and roots is known, the design should be amended if necessary to avoid or minimise damage. So probably best to do this right, proper survey and AIA, adjust design, submit proposal and support it with AMS. I doubt it it's the type of thing any tree surgeon could do. Do it right and it sees off the threat of a refusal based on insufficient evidence. A refusal has no chance at appeal unless it's done right.

Even shorter: it's pants!

As Paul says it's not essential in all cases. The current Government guidance does say that "Where a Tree Preservation Order may be justified, the officer should gather sufficient information to enable an accurate Order to be drawn up. The officer should record the number and species (or at least the genus) of the individual trees or groups of trees to be included in the Order and their location. A general description of genera should be sufficient for areas of trees or woodlands." And for groups, the TPO has to be in the form set out in the 2012 Regs and therefore 'must' record the number of eachg tree species, so arguably a group Order is technically wrong if it doesn't. It's a pretyyu poor effort not to know the species. How can the Council know what amenioty it provides if they don't know it's basic growth characteristics? But if there's only one tree at the location on the plan, not getting the species may not be fatal to the Order's effect. If there are two trees, either of which could be the plotted one, the TPO's potentially unenforceable.

Thankyou. elastica sounds promising, not sure why but it ties in in my mind with broad morphological similarities between the woods of Liriodendron, Populus and Salix. I will ask the owner of the tree what he knows of its origin, but I suspect he knows not much as he bought the house with this savagely pruned tree in situ last summer.

Spotted over rehe weekend on Liriodendron tuluipifera. Closest match I can think of is Flammulina velutipes, as yet without the darkened stems. Anyone know of an association?

2 nails and the clinometer app on a smartphone https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.plaincode.clinometer&hl=en_GB

Clause 10.9 All forms of restraint in a tree should be inspected at intervals determined according to the materials used and the structure(s) supported, the condition of the tree and site usage. Additional inspections should be made in particular circumstances (e.g. after heavy snow and high wind events or after a change in site usage). When the initial installation of support is being considered, the client should be advised of these requirements and of the recommended frequency of the regular inspections. The default frequencies should be annual for a general ground-based inspection, using binoculars if required, and five-yearly for a detailed aerial inspection.

I've monitored a Cedar using a pendulum and also recording the angle. Putting a clinometer against the bark is not something you can replicate the next year. What I have done is get 2 very long nails and hammer them in to the stem along the axis of lean. Top or underside is equally as good. Get the nails nearly a foot apart. Make sure they're into the wood (just) so they don't get pushed out by subsequent growth, and leave enough nail showing to accommodate years worth of annual increments. Use galvanised nails, and don't do this trick on broadleaves. Then the angle can be measured again and again by putting a rigid stick or ruler along the heads of the nails and then the clinometer along that. The wider apart the nails, the more precise the measurement. I have toyed with the idea of making up a semi-permanent in-situ clinometer, I know how to do it but haven't got round to it yet. If anyone's interested I can post a sketch. The problem of windy days is traditionally surmounted by putting the base of the pendulum in a dish of liquid. High precision plumblines were made of stiff wire and the liquid was oil. Baling twine has got to be the worst sort of string for catching the wind. Maybe replace it with a bit of throwline and a fishing weight? A dish of water should do for such a short drop.

Nothing is ever as it seems... Especially if you're used to Redwoods. What would the ratio be for one of those monsters?

PO needs to clarify, is it the volume of teh 20m lower half that's needed or the whole stem? Stem taper requires a bit of juggery pokery to estimate volume, I have seen papers explaining that it's not as simple as taking average diameter, and involves measuring or estimating the diameter at several points up the stem. This graph is for the famous 'General Sherman' redwood. Height is in m along the bottom axis, radius up the side axis. If it's just the first 20m here that matters and as the OP says it's fairly constant at 1m diameter, a cylinder calculation would maybe suffice. So wet weight 17.2 T. Maybe the question is how does it need to be cut so that each piece does not exceed the available 3.5T PTO winch? 17.2/3.5 = approx 5 pieces of 3.5T each. Over 20 meteres that's 20/5 = 4m. MAybe near enough to 3.6m standard length to make that a useful target?

Fair enough, the FC has published figures somewhere indicating a wet/dry ratio of about 50%. 550kg/m3 must be air dry density, so double that. And i suppose an overbark diameter could be misleading as Douglas Fir can be quite corky barked.

A 20m length of diameter 1m will have a volume of 15.7m3 and at a density of 0.55T/m3 will weigh 8.6 tonnes