daltontrees

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

Cryptococcus fagisuga is a common overwintering woolly spot on Beech bark, often hundreds of them.

How about you take all your survey data ever in spreadsheet form, and calculate the average ratio from that? Oddly I would have no bother doing this as I have never cleared out survey data from my handheld, it would take me about 5 minutes to come up with a figure in Excel. Or use your own data more selectively, from surveys that you know were mainly maiden open grown mature trees? It's gopt to be impossible to generalise. The ratio for any tree is partly a manifestation of apical dominance, but there will be factors of maturity, species, variety, competition, exposure. For example during the week I took down a Norway Spruce, in a windy, alluvial coastal situation. 42 years old from the ring count, spread at the base 12 metres, and conical from there, height 12 metres. The week before another Norway, sheltered by other giants in a garden, on clays, 28 years old spread 14 metres most of the way up, height 24 metres. Or is there something in this that might point you in the right direction? https://www.sorbus-intl.co.uk/hi-tech/survey-equipment/traditional-survey-equipment/iml-multi-tool

I started climbing when I was 45, I can still keep a couple of groundies busy any day. It's not about strength.

Insofar as my comprehension of your inferred understanding of what oslac implied from your original premise is inconsistent with my prescribed conclusions, I don't think that I can do anything but not concur with your concurrence thereof.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but 'wilful damage' is specifically referred to in the Act. Furthermore it is an indictable offence rahter than a summary one, openign the way to unlimited fines. Now you could argue that it might not be the primary intention, when digging out a drive, to damage the tree, but you'd be onto plums. You'd be damaging the tree, knowing that you are going to damage it for whatever related objective, and that is an offence. It could fall far short of destruction of the tree and still be a very serious offence. Courts don't paraphrase, they can only follow the letter of the law. Namely 'damage'. For that and other reasons I'd advise the OP not to follow your 'go for it' advice without knowing what he was getting into. I don't want an argument with you, but remember we have a member of the public asking for advice about a situation, and as it stands some people are saying (me included) ask the Council and save grief, worst case scenario a delegated powers free TPO application or maybe £150 for a combo PP and TPO application and have somethign to put witht he title deeds as comfort when you sell. Some are saying a ballsy consultant will persuade the client to go for it without process. I think that those consultants don't really exist, at least not for long. I am as plesed as anyone to applaud the hero who takes on teh system, challenges longhelp misconceptions, wins and makes the world a better place, ridded of one bit of unnecessary bureaucracy. I just don't think that this case is worthwhile.

This is a classic game of trumps. But the bottom lines seem to be these. 1. Abatemenet of a nuisance that is preventing use of land for parking is only a valid exception to the TPO protection "so far as may be necessary for the prevention or abatement of a nuisance" 2012 Reg 14(a)(ii). The important bits there are 'so far as', and 'necessary'. The case mentioned, Perrin, showed that the damage to a tree's roots shoild only be occsioned if no reasonable engineering solution is possible to avoid it. It is not carte blanche to take the opportunity to rid the land of roots completely for the sake of it. As others have said, a properly considered technical solution should be possible that would avoid all but minimal damage to roots, and still achieve parking. From all this I would conclude that care should be taken to minimise, so far as reasonably practicable, root damage whether planning permission is required or not. 2. The abatement is not permitted if it is not lawful in all respects, including obttaining all other necessary statutory consents. I am alluding of course to planning permission. As has been mentioned, the parking area may be an engineering operation and should therefore require consent unless there is a very clear permitted development right. And of course if permission is required and is obtained, this creates an exemption to the need for a separate TPO application (Reg 14(a)(vii), although it may come with conditions designed to protect the tree. Personally I take the view as I see the law doing that exemptions should not be used to circumvent the general obligation to do anything (whether abatement of nuisance or the use of permitted development rights) in a way that minimises or avoids otherwise avoidable collateral damage. It is a good precautionary principle that avoids later recriminations or unwanted legacies that might materialise only when trying to sell a house years later. The same applies to fence posts. So, ask the Council. Only if its response cannot be justified will it be necessary to wheel out the big guns.

As rehydrating clay soil reaches and passes the 'Liquid Limit' it may be able to flow to some small extent (albeit very viscously) around foundations, which may provide very localised relief against heave. In theory anyway, there is a rationale for staged removal of vegetation to make rehydration and liquifaction of less than overconsolidated clays under foundations a gradual thing. I can't see it making a jot of difference in overconsolidated situations.

I am working my way through that article. The abstract says the article's findings vindicate the Cutler and Richardson Kew root survey 26 years' previously. I currently have two subsidence claim cases ongoing (rare to very rare in Scotland) and when looking at real situations it is immediately difficult to apply any conventional wisdom and just as difficult to overcome client concerns based on popular press and over-reatcions from lenders and insurers. For these reasons, it is impossible to advise the OP objectively, since we don't know any of the circumstances. He seems to have disappeared anyway, perhaps he's too busy killing the tree to give us any foolow-up info?

And here she is, gleaming tonight.