AA Teccie (Paul)

...and maybe Maze Gill on the old pruning wound

Whilst there have been some success stories involving the application / injection of phosphites it has to be done regularly to maintain the control effect. Unless it really is a special tree, in which case phosphites may be worth a try but very few tree surgeons can apply it, I would enjoy it during flowering and consider removal thereafter and replacement plant with a nice alternative species, small-leaf Lime (Tilia cordata) is one of my favs but there are many others. In terms of finding a good tree surgeon, I'm sure if you say whereabouts you are then "one will be along shortly" ...failing that you could try here www.trees.org.uk Regards, Paul PS You should check with your local council for any controls, mainly tree preservation orders (TPOs) or Conservation Areas, or possibly planning conditions , which may require you to obtain permission first...."just in case."

As Martin says the brown spots will doubtless be leaf-miner which is now endemic and whilst doesn't directly cause a particular problem it's far from ideal and the trees look very poor from mid-summer onwards as the miners feed and the leaves brown and often fall. Crown reduction and/or bracing, if required, is an option but I'd probably avoid the latter in H. Chestnuts if using invasive techniques, i.e. breaching the bark layer, and do question whether it's viable really for the species as the longer term prognosis isn't great. In terms of the H&S implications given the proximity of the park/playground, this would be a consideration from a tree failure risk assessment point of view but it's often too easy to predict the worst and remove trees unnecessarily...or too soon (that said obviously I haven't seen the tree at close quarters nor the site and proximity.) At the end of the day the decision is yours, obviously, but I don't think you need to rush in "chainsaw-a-blazing" just yet and more particularly as it will soon be in flower and that's when it's at its best.

Structurally, with basal twin stems, the long-term outlook probably isn't great as a possibility of 'parting ways' but this would require a more detailed inspection of the union. Whilst there does appear to be some fluxing, possibly bacterial ooze, and cambial dysfunction (bark death) on the stem, I've seen much worse. Perhaps wait until it comes into leaf to better assess it's overall condition (vitality) and post back then. Regards, Paul

One of the many nice things about this site, and posters, you get the 'balance' right in terms of "work n play". Very funny indeed. Thanks all n keep'um'comin (NO pun intended! )

A couple of clarifications, if I may: 1. "..point them out, not in.." meaning point the gate outwards? (if so is there not a chance the rope will potentially load through the gate if snatched, for instance, which could fail?) 2. "See 0.46" ...what does this mean? Sorry, you can see I'm non-operational these days. Thanks, Paul

However, both Lantra and C&Gs/NPTC qualifications and/or certifications meet the general HASWA and PUWER requirements and hence their designation is a little academic...and that's where the 'added value' of a regulated qualification comes in, i.e. academia. So, in a nutshell, "either / or" is fine for meeting your H&S obligations towards a competent operator (inferring the qual / cert is the start point for gaining competence and then onto proficiency, i.e. "time served.") Cheers, Paul

...and that's all the "management" they need eh? "Philistine" Take it you've finished for the day Mr Bolam n now wreaking 'ARBTALK' havoc...long may it continue

I too thanked previous posters, and in particular Big Jim. Coincidentally, and whilst on the subject of (Emergency) First Aid, I did a renewal only yesterday and, being the 2nd 'industry specific' one I've now done, was reminded of the usefulness of tourniquets for stemming 'arterial' bleeds, i.e. bright red blood spurting out, where you can place them above the wound, e.g. upper arm / upper leg. The issue of "building up of toxins" was discussed and whether you should release the tourniquet periodically to avoid / control such BUT, of course, that would result in further blood loss and interfere with any clotting that may have started to occur, and the trainer was firmly of the opinion to leave it on there and let the emergency services / hospital / doctors deal with that...hopefully after you've saved their life by stopping them bleeding to d**th She also covered improvised tourniquets, which was pretty simple and obvious after seeing them, but not sure I would have though to do so beforehand Lastly, I know I'm an office 'softie' these days but we did CPR / chest compressions on the dummies for 2mins...FLIP, I'm rejoining the gym this weekend, how hard was that! All-in-all an excellent day, as indeed was the previous one I did, so please, please try to access a course which specifically covers this stuff. Cheers fer now.. Paul

"Tongue with cheek in" yeah ...tis a long, (very long) time ago since I was an ATB chainsaw instructor but, fer wot it's worth (2'6) I'll share my knowledge with you

...n with an (un)healthy dose of Coryneum Canker by the look of it, as is the norm for 'maccies' n perhaps another identifying feature

There speaks "The Master" ...along with Mr Dempsey of course

Mark, I completely understand your being disagreeable, however I was working on the basis of tree / hedge retention as appears to be the OPs intention / desire for screening etc. I wholly acknowledge your comments here, and your previous ones, and in an ideal world removal and replacement, with a suitable maintenance regime of course, would be best...but cost is clearly an issue and it was a suggestion to phase the work and spread the cost. Not an ideal solution but..

I know it's delaying the inevitable, seemingly (as per the good collective advice thus far,) but it may be worth considering phasing the works and doing the "height reduction" first, ideally all trees/hedge, and thereby reducing the 'risk' of failure (as described) significantly. Trimming / cutting of the side growth to be undertaken at some later date (you may find NR actually choose to do this on their side in due course.) This may reduce the cost of the initial phase of management and if you can get all neighbours / owners to act together you may get better value from a contractor (also, it may be that non-rail contractors are prepared to undertake / quote for this type of work as they hopefully shouldn't need to work on, or over, NR land...albeit they may be within vicinity zones .) I wouldn't bother with solicitors as your duty / responsibility / obligation is quite obvious, respectfully (and becoz £4k will likely very quickly become £5k, or more, with no transfer of duty / obligation.) A challenging / costly situation unfortunately. Good luck with it all, Paul

Exactly...along with being suitably knowledgeable, competent , experienced and, ideally, qualified / certificated, e.g. Professional Tree Inspection (Lantra PTI.) This should mean they meet the requirements of the NTSG guidance relating to 'detailed tree inspections' which could conclude that further, more detailed or specialists, investigations are required, e.g. a climbing inspection / use of tomogram etc. The 'barrister' who directs the legal aspects of NTSG has indicated this case does not fundamentally change the guidance but highlights the importance of 'zoning' the land-holding and inspection frequencies according (when I was TO previously we did this less formally but anything between 6 months and 3 years for street trees...the 6 months in town center and after a 'no-blame' fatality in 1990, always focuses the mind.) Cheers, Paul

Hi Mike, Related, maybe it's time too for the Association to consider re-launching 'R2' (Register of Tree Work Operatives) which provides a structure to record training, quals, skills, competencies, knowledge, experience etc. and a progression route from trainee to proficient operator which is validated. Other employers, who supported 'R2' but were in the minority, had existing "work based development programs" which fed into the process. Regards, n hope you're well (n clearly "business is good" ) Paul

Think that's down to local arrangements / council procedure. It's usual that it has to go before a committee prior to confirmation if objections are received...I think.

Hence the need, ideally, to get 'social media' savvy as a parent (= FAILED) and keep talking to them (= PASSED, I think/hope.) The relatively complexity of modern life was driven home to me a few weeks back helping my son to complete an online application for...summat (can't remember, another benefit of age ) and the Gender section had 4 options...say no more, and that worried me!

Apologies if I've missed the context here, but being pedantic there is no 'appeal' opportunity to the making of a TPO. Once served, the LPA (Local Planning Authority..."the Council") has to allow at least 28 days for representations, either objecting or supporting the TPO. The only 'appeal' opportunity is to PINS (the Planning Inspectorate) after having made an application to remove the tree and it being refused...or 'unreasonable' conditions imposed (I think), e.g. you have to replacement plant with 5 trees. Be mindful, as others have mentioned, there is a significant backlog here, up to 12 months, and, apparently, PINS are using planners rather than arbs, i.e. non-specialist, to determine them and the likelihood is the best case 'on paper' will be successful...hence ensure your reasons and supporting evidence are comprehensive (perhaps consider engaging a consultant, with experience, to assist.) Cheers.. Paul

Thank you Edward. My reference "back to" Plan A was because the OP was exploring the exceptions / exemptions options within the TPO which, in my understanding, are not applicable under the circumstances (which you have, in effect, confirmed.) So, my vote is for Plan A...the 2nd one

"Any more takers here?"...n dare I ask "if not, why not" please? If the fact that the Local Council's jurisdiction doesn't require such, either for their own trees or TPO'd trees (preferentially / indirectly), then the XXX Council "chicken n egg" scenario may be of interest. Essentially, some years ago, the XXX Council contract was won by an "out of area / region" ARB Approved Contractor much to the dismay of the local arb contracting fraternity (at the time only one of which was ARB Approved.) Over the term of the 3-year (I think) contract 3 or 4 others became ARB Approved and, at contract renewal, one of them won the contract. Thereafter, with an active nucleus of ACs, XXX Council started directing TPO'd tree work to them, indirectly, and neighbouring Councils started to do the same. Later the County Council included "ARB Approved Contractor...or equivalent" in their framework tender and then the FC regional office did the same. Essentially, through the scheme, the arb fraternity in the region set a benchmark which the local authority etc. network "bought in to" and harmony prevails Thanks for your comments.. Paul

Hmmmm, "actual damage" to the highway wasn't clearly evident from the photo you posted...even with my poor eyesight! Tread carefully with that approach I would suggest. I recommend you go back to 'Plan A' and let the Sect. 211 notice run its course and take it from there. Cheers, Paul

Hi Mark, yeah, I recognize that but I was driving at the difference in cost of rebuilding the wall as it was originally and modifying it to facilitate retention of the tree...whether that would equal +£500 and hence whether one could claim compensation for that

Thanks Jules. However, I was meaning compensation to cover the additional cost incurred in an engineering solution to allow re-building of the wall and retention of the tree. But, as I said, I don't know / understand if the compensation clause allows for this type of cost incurred by the tree owner...or indeed whether there would be additional cost...and if there were whether it would be £500s worth Paul

In law, apparently, a tree cannot be a nuisance to it's own property. Hence this exception is n/a (assuming the tree and the wall belong to the same owner.)