daltontrees

Sometimes they are not adopted until they get to a public area. The position of the blockage is not described, if it's in the neighbour's garden it might not be adopted.

If this is going to get acrimoniuos and expensive, best not discuss it on a public forum. Two things are needed, straying roots and a defective drain. Generally it's not the type of thing that's foreseeable. There's also no way that you could have know that your tree in particular is causing damage. Indeed, you couldn't have known there was daamge. But I'd steer clear of admitting that "sewer pipes laid by council builders would probably not be in the best state of repair", as that comes close to acknowledging that you should have foreseen susceptibility to blockage. That said, a properly specified and constructed sewer shouldn't allow roots in. There are rare exceptions to this. Might be best to start from the position that responsibility for blockage lies predominantly or wholly with whoever allowed the drain to fall into disrepair enough to allow roots to enter. But tread carefully, the disrepair (not the blockage) might start at your property. If it's on the neighbour's property, it shouldn't be your problem. The law of nuisance, negligence and foreseeability issurprisingly complex, with no absolutes. It is certainly not a 'strict liability' situation. Eucalyptus is rarely a good idea in urban settings.

No Council has the right to stick rigidly to the 12x DBH RPA. Trees don't read guidelines, they go where they find favourable growing conditions. The relevant British Standard says tha thte RPS should be drawn initially as a circle, but then should be modified to reflect underground condiitons. In my experience rooting near roads and footways are nearly never radial. Correction, never. The Standard says that the assessment of root distribution must be done by an arboriculturist. Neither they with their simplistic rule nor you can justify the RPA being circular or any alternative shape. Point 2 is that the RPA is not the same as the area within which roots cna be found. The latter is always bigger than the former. A trench may help to demonstrate something or other, and if it showed up no roots then you have the proof you need. If you find roots you don't know if they're important enough to avoid. They might be deep enough to bridge over. Their loss might be tolerable. Not simple.

Thanks for doing this, it's really reassuring to see the tree managing the wound. Numerous myths are being dispelled as we watch.

Lots of lichen masking the problem. I am seeing bleeding cankers which could be due to several things including Phytophthora, Armillaria or bark beetles.

Germans call it the Gingerbread Tree or Cake Tree

Cercidiphyllum japonicum. Katsura also known as Caramel Tree.

I use magnetic signs for my survey car. 2 issues in the past were - 1. Someone stole them when I was parked at the supermarket, a customer called me up a few hours later and said some guys had been around asking if she wanted trees lopped, the van had my signs on it. Had she not known me she might have fallen for it and I would have got the reputaitonal damage of a shoddy job. 2. They don't work on aluminium bodywork. Obviously, but for 2 years with my wee Audi I did without. Vistaprint does them really cheap but recently started only doing max A4, which is nearly useless.

OK it's a bit clearer now. Being interviewed under caution is a different thing from a caution as an alternative (after admission of guilt) to prosecution.

Big man, being rude to people from the safety of anonymity. As suspected your contributions to this forum are mostly hot air and bravado and it will please me to ignore all of them in the future. So in that respect I will indeed S the FU and leave you to continue believing that your utterances are sound, helpful or entertaining.

It is very common up here, but Scotland has had a different system of land ownership form England since ever (Roman Law origins mixed with feudal tenure). The developer records a deed called a Deed of Conditions, which applies to all houses sold in the developent. It sets out the common rights and obligations in respect of common parts, which cna be everything from roof trusses to open spaces. It is binding on everyone and is referred to in the recorded deed of every house. Strictly speakign it is only enforceable by the developer against each house owner but by the principle of jus quaesitum tertio it is enforceable by each owner against every other owner. It is recognised in the Land Certificate and legislation as a 'community burden', giving it full enforceability. The good but is that individuals can't muck about. The bad thing is that you can never get agreement on anything. It is in effect a really good way of ensuring that trees on common areas are protected by the full power of self-righteous curtain-twitching. I keep forgetting that England has relatively primitive land ownership systems.

Or (see my post above) it's transferred to all the owners. Maybe that's just a scottish thing?

Just as often (up here anyway) the open spaces are transferred to the residents as common property, to be managed by the residents or a factor. I am very very reluctantly the chair of our residents association and I caught a guy decking 5 big poplars on our land during lockdown (planted 40 years ago to satisfy planning conditions). Fortunately the surrounding residents and co-owners were just as pleased to see the sun as he was, so I am sure there would have been a conspiracy of silence about who did it had I not actually heard the chainsaws blazing and gone out to see what was going on.

Chris see my reply to AHPP, I don't know that there's such a thing as a 'caution'. It might strictly speakino be called a 'reprimand on interview under caution'. Happy to be proved wrong.

Excuse me, who are you telling to STFU, and do you really think that it adds weight to your argument?

I have heard of people being interviewed under caution for TPO transgressions and it going on their record. I don't know that there is a specific statutory power or process for trees. The 'caution' is not a telling-off and admonishment. The caution is the 'anything you say may be used in evidence against you' thing, in other words prosecution may ensue and admissible evidence is being gathered, including the interview. It's never happened to me, but what I have heard it appears on your record as if and admonishment, so it is to be avoided. Mynors covers it a bit at 26-37 et seq. He indicates that it isn't just police who are bound to issue a caution before interview, Council officers are too, if they want to rely on what is said or not said in a subsequent prosecution. Agan, I have no first hand experience but have heard of the interview being used to scare and chastise the witness into not doing it again. I suppose it could only be taken into account in a subsequent offence if the record of the interview showed admission of guilt and then admonishment (reprimand). Most TPO offences are strict liability offences, you can't get reprimanded, you are either fined or are not guilty. But there may be exceptions to that. If indicted it's a whole lot more serious and admonishment without fine is theoretically possible. As I say, thankfully I have not had direct experience but a lifetime isn't long enough to learn from direct experience and we all have to top it up with indirect. So in the contect of this thread, I meant thagt the Council may or may not prefer to interview someone under caution (as an opportunity to reprimand) rather than prosecute.

Doesn't look 'hacked about'. Substantial reduction, yes, but looks quite well done. Might have saved it being properly hacked about later or by some cowboys. Someone instructed it and paid for it. It's for the Council to decide if it wants to prosecute or caution someone. If it thinks the works are heinous enough, it could to the detective work. There's always several levels to deciding to prosecute. Was the TPO known? Were the works of the prohibited kind? Would it have got consent on application? Are the works going to destroy the tree and the amenity it provides? And finally, can the Council prove who did it?

So that seems to be showing signs on the stem of old gill attachment so these could be 'seceding' and soooo,, it could be sulphur tuft after all. Hurrah!

gill attachment.pdf

Update: I have just discovered ther is such a thing (to add to my primitive list of gill attachment types) as "seceding" which is "Gills appear torn away or hanging, but where attached at some point in time. Evidence of the attachment may remain on the stipe, usually occurs in older specimens." Since the specimens appear in most ways to look like or be in the habitat of sulphur tuft, this may be an indication tha they are sulphur tuft and that the gills have been adnexed but have come detached and/or are easily detached when the cap is torn off.

I'm just going by what I have read. 2 books and 2 reliable websites. All saying adnate.

I wondered about that but the one on the right in the lower picture shows free gills even though the top has not been pulled off.

Looks like sulphur tuft but the gills are 'free', for sulphur tuft they should be 'adnate'. I haven't got any better suggestion, though.

I'm waterproof. Holidays are for losers. My economy's not struggling.😇

Council contract bashing? I work for just about every volume house builder in the UK. Forestry Commission, WIldlife Trust, Crown Estates, about 15 Housing Associations, About 15 Councils at the last count. I am instructed by solicitors, architects, planning consultants, project managers and a fee others I'm not allowed to name. NONE of this work would happen if I didn't have insurance. The premiums are about 1/2% of my turnover. You stick to your niche and I'll stick to mine.