daltontrees

I suppose that has to be strictly correct, but it's a poor situation that would allow a notifier to wait 6 weeks then believe he had the right to remove a tree, and then have that right removed by the making of 'late' a TPO by a Council that didn'tt get its act together quickly enough. Put another way, the TPO has to be based on expediency including a real or pereived threat that the tree's amenity may be lost, but the Councils (inactions) suggest no such urgency. Mynors in the 1st edition refers to R. v North Hertfordshire District Council ex parte Hyde confirms that the tree is unprotected in the intervening period. If it were my tree and I had lined up a squad of guys to remove trees after the 6 weeks was up and then got a TPO I'd be fizzing. There may be a basis for compensation. Oh, and as usual don't rely on any of this stuff for Scotland. And if there's a lesson for the determined notifier, get the notification to stick with a reliably recorded dte a tthe Council's correct address and have the saws idling just before midnight 6 weeks later. it's a sad state of affairs that encourages this sort of attitude but 6 weeks should be long enough for any Council to make a TPO.

Well, who knows? Looking up pests that affect Cedar on the FC site throws up Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (Pine Wilt Disease) too, and americaln sites confirm this will kill a tree within weeks. Such rapid deaths are like nthe good old bad old DED, complete dysfunction of the vascular system. In PWD it is caused by nematodes rupturing the resin ducts, seemingly causing tracheid cavitation and as the American Phytopathological Society puts it 'just as a person cannot drink through a straw with holes in it, the tree cannot move water upward and consequently wilts and dies'. The US site does not list Cedar as a host, but the FC certainly suggests it. HF is a rank amateur compared to these instant killer diseases.

Hope rather than expectation by me, thought I'd ask anyway. I'm on the Sirococcus scent anyway.

I think Kveldssanger referred to it a while ago in his arb facts thread. I'd get it if I could pick up a used copy. It's a bit of a luxury at £40 new.

Which species of Phytopthora?

This appears more likely than Phytopthora. It's called Sirococcus tsugae. The best evidence that can be gathered is the distinctive pink dead needles, I read these then turn brown so it'll be important to observe them while still pink. I'd say Forestry research would be interested in following up a report of a suspected case.

More than opinion, that is the position in law. The history of analogous situations is that 6 weeks means 6 weeks and tim is 'of the essence'. A late TPO might be valid, but so would a notification that got no response within 6 weeks. Daughter thinks these emoticons are appropriate here.:fight:

A. I don't think there is a statutory answer to this. If the Act calls for written notification (s.211) to the LPA, it's not to the Plannign Dept. it's to the Council. Let its mail dept. redicrect it to the right dept. I always put mine in to the Council's registered address (HQ) unless the Council has published (usually on its website) where notifications are to be sent. If, however, the Council takes it a little further and individual TOs state that they accept emails directly to the TO, then the Council cannot subsequently say that a notification was late or wrongly submitted. The picture is a little blurry recently because of the use of emails. There is statute providing for what constitutes 'writing' and the like and whether emails count. But if an email is accepted, that's the end of it. Always ask for an acknowledgement. In my case I follow emails up with a letter. B. It doesn't state this anywhere, it doesn't have to. The legislation ust requires sufficient info to identify the tree(s). C. No. A safe bet is to assume a letter will take say 2 working days to get to the Council, and its response will take the same to come back. So if you allow 6 weeks and 2 working days and get no written response, you are immune from prosecution if you do the notified tree work. Even, dare i say it, if the Council subsequently TPOs the trees.

No picture

I have come across this sort of NR money-printing madness. And recently I tried to get to the bottom of it to see on what basis NR can insist on supervising. Indeed, on what basis canit insist on tree removal or pruning. I was unable to find anything but the most ancient and vague of legislation. The bottom line from NR's side seems to be a zero tolerance of risk. The rest of us mere mortals are bound by law only to avoid foreseeable risk that would cause significant harm or injury. NR seems to have a culture of insisting on H&S measures whether it is right to or not. Although I don't envy your situation, if I were in it I would be insisting on a definite statement of NR's legal basis for requiring all these measures. If I didn't get one, then it's a common law issue, involving the usual (mortals) level of duty of care. For the sake of this forum, can you say if it is an eletrified line with overhead wires?

Your splendid fungi directory lists this as saprophytic, but do you know if it is capable of killing wood at the margins? I have been assuming this to be the case but based on fery few occasions where I have had a chance to observe its progression over a couple of years.

It'd be interesting to see how that would go on big jobs. Any moisture at all causes cyanoacrylate to forma skin and harden, so I' wondering if nail varnish remover would act as a suitable thinner and allow deeper penetration before evaporating and letting atmospheric moisture cause the CA to harden. I have a sneaking suspicion that that's how the commercially available wood hardeners work. They are horrendously expensive and a rotted wood sill will drink a whole tin in no time, but it they could be mixed in bulk it would be well useful. Or they might explode, try at your own peril folks and if you survive maybe let us know how it went. I think CA mixed with sawdust can be used as a bulk void filler.

I did half of the Glasgow iTree survey, it put monetary value on hundreds of individual trees. Conversely, I have used Helliwell fo about 20 trees. I will never use CAVAT. I have played with CTLA but have resorted to first principles of DRC in preference to using it fully. So for me iTrees is the commonest.

See my reply to Paul. There is one main flaw, and as such Helliwell valuiations cannot be considered valuations in any conventional sense. CAVAT carries an equally fundamental flaw.

That's what I meant by Helliwell being a comparative system rahter than an absolute one. It originated as you say to quanmtify amenity, then it was later monetised. And that's the flaw with it, the points are multiplied bya published £ per point All trees valued by the Helliwell system are valued by a committee of the AA that comes up with that £ per poiint figure. There is no objective basis for it.

I think by sheer volume the mostly used is CTLA, which is at the core of iTrees.

Did you mean 'flawed'?

Correct, anything multiplied by zero is zero. And so it is with Helliwell system. Use it with great care, I think its usefuleness is as a comparative system rahter than one that delivers absolute values.

There is a standard for assessing ecological/biodiversity/wildlife value. Is it specific to trees? I don't think it is. Does it give any means of weighing up BS5837 categorisation against thiose values? Definitely not. It's back to that thread that Kevin mentioned in which cynicism was rife about the new bat standard. Since then I have worked on af ew bat tree climbng inspections with ecologists. They are roundly unimpressed with the new standard and are largely ignoring it, preferring the BCT guidance. And I have yet to meet an arb consultant who is invoking it for tree categorisation. There is a hole in the guidance that could accommodate any number of bats. I have my own way of dealing with it in reports which in short is to say that 8596 cannot be applied to categorisations.

I think it is too. Although called Broom it is not the same genus as Cytisus scoparius but they are in the same 'Tribe' Genisteae along with Gorse and Laburnum. Most of these are leguminous, the importance being that they can fix atmospheric nitrogen and so can survive in (and improve) organically poor soils.

My thought too.

Only thing is the base of Turkish hazel leaves always extends backwards in 2 more or less round lobes.

Meant to add, most of these fall arrest lanyards that might be incorporated into a SRT are only rated to static loads of 140kg (0.14kN), and would probably therefore be a fraction of the load rating of climbing ropes (typically 30kN) and krabs (30kN). Why ruin the whole system with a weak link?

Or there's this https://www.totalaccessonline.co.uk/Products/Lanyards/Fall-Arrest/2-5m-Retractable-energy-absorbing-lanyard Bumble B just quoted AFAG, quite right. It's probably best not to rely on a device that is needed to cover for bad practice. When retreating from a branch walk, it is virtually always possible to anchor from the branch with a second rope DdRT till the danger of a pendulum is passed. I had a nasty one last week, 14m long Beech limb rising at 45 degrees, nothing on it to hold onto for the first 8 metres, and covered in moss. I went up it a cheval, puxshing in front of me a wirecore lanyard wrapped twice around the stem and clipped to side Ds. There's always a way.

I used to have one for climbing via ferrrata in the Dolomites. VIA FERRATA EDELRID SET - | Decathlon It is really intended for horizontal climbs where if you come off and you are clipped to the fixed wire that is there on a via ferrata the shock is absorbed. It could be incorporated into a base anchor. There's a nother way to do it involving a slip-friction device on the climbing line. If I find a picture I will post it.