10 Bears

Thats a shame about the Hawthorn. I built a lovely Hawthorn bench for outside of my house a good 10 years ago now, left it natural/untreated, and its still absolutely solid with no sign of rot anywhere. It came from a windblow down my road that I cleared up, the legs on it are ~40cm dia...

Coriniumarb - what specifically are you looking to use it for ie which elements of admin? - Job sheets? costings? invoicing? Stock control? Employee cards etc. etc. I could just tell you to get confident in some very basic SQL programming and write your own MIS in MS Access - but this may not really be your ideal situation (although you would have total control over it, so I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand). Others on here have suggested various web/app based services for things like invoicing, so there may be more than one solution to what you are looking for. So, could you be a little more specific as to your needs or what you are looking to manage?

Larch can be a bit sticky on the cut ends for a while after felling due to resins - but these are of course what stop the wood from rotting. I would suggest Hawthorn personally. Often quite interesting looking and practically indestructible. Except by fire of course...

I agree Peter. They look to have a wind firm edge, but are a little flagged though.

Never mind. Get back to me if you need help when its sorted.

Gary, If Ambleside are not interested, PM me with your details. I have a pal at Windermere with a couple of yards that would help.

Forgot to mention, using the webform to send the email takes a matter of seconds - no need for a long email, it's pre populated with a message.

My first thought was Pleurotus ostreatus, but searching for dryinus, I think David is right. Apparently not overly common on Ash, but frequently on dead parts of living trees ie cut deadwood stubs. Either way, a good find.

Ancient woodland in the UK is more at threat from development at this time then at any time previously. There is a proposed all-party parliamentary group (APPG) looking to raise awareness of the value of ancient woodland in parliament, with a focus on trying to understand the threats and to take additional steps to protect it. This proposed group is to be chaired by Rebecca Pow MP, the first meeting of the group will take place on Tuesday 20th October, however, for the APPG to work, it will need a wide show of support by MP's if the group is to be formalised and have any power. So, this is where you come in. You just need to go to the following web page, fill out your details in a webform and write to your MP asking them to attend the meeting or show their support: APPG Ancient woodland - Woodland Trust As it says on the Woodland Trust website, "In order to establish the new group formally as an APPG, we need a strong turnout at this first meeting". So, please write to your MP and try to encourage them to attend and help afford our ancient woodlands more protection from development...

Unfortunately, its because of attitudes like this that we now need environmental laws - to protect endemic species or areas that become threatened due to the actions of the mis-informed or ignorant. Establishing a woodland is affecting a land use change at a local scale. Any responsible person would not just bash on without knowing what the potential environmental impacts may be. It does not take a lot of time or effort to know you are doing the job properly, or to amend your plans if there is likely to be a negative environmental impact. In fact, if the afforestation was in a National Park, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) or National Scenic Area (NSA) and over 2 hectares, then there is a legal requirement to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment. For all other areas it is 5 hectares. Although this site in question is considerably smaller, there is no need to ignore best practice when it doesn't take much effort at all to do the right thing.

Just to get back to the OP - there *could* be limitations on afforesting a site if your site is afforded protection by a specific land designation. The most obvious example to give is if you are in a SSSI area, or even adjacent to one, and the establishment of your woodland will negatively affect whatever the SSSI is in place to protect. Or you may need to check the existing plant community with an ecological study first. So, for example, if you have a Ophrys apifera happily growing away in your paddock and you plant a woodland over the top of it, you could be committing a section 13 WCA (1980) offence. So, my advice is to check the land designations of your site, at the following websites and see if any are potentially going to effect your site: Forestry Commission : GLADE : Land Information Search Magic and enquire about an eco survey with a local contractor and then you will have done all the right things.

Yes a purpose built mega-mulcher is the best way to handle a job like this. Make sure you get on site to see it in action - really impressive piece of kit!

Hello Kevin, Sorry, I missed your earlier question about this as I just skimmed over the replies. I notice you had an exchange with Gary which as ever, was also full of useful information so in part at least, I hope you got the answer you were looking for. I totally understand your view as you have written above - yes it just doesn't seem to sit right, so herein comes the fallback position, it is not entirely clear about what the outcome of a situation like this would be if it was tried in court. This is simply why each case is judged in individual merit, circumstances and the benefits of prior judgements in earlier cases. In short, it is up to the judiciary to weigh up the individual significance of the different parts of the case and come to a unique, but informed, decision. In your example person A does exercise their rights to remove the encroachment, but as Gary describes, the actions need to be that of a 'reasonable man' and therefore, not affect the rights of the tree owner to retain their tree in its current location with an upright habit! This is even the case where there is an actionable nuisance. Again the nuisance can of course be abated, but if this goes to the point that there is unreasonable suffering or loss on the side of person B, then there is cause for recompense. What that would entail again would be down to the judgement on the individual merits of the case. With regard to the liability to A because B's tree failed, another element in the story would be to establish the intent of A in the process of removing the roots, ie did A intend to make the tree unstable as he wanted it to fail/be removed? If that could be proved, and its surprising what people admit to for their motivations, then yes liability would be passed. There is also another tenet to consider here, simply that of 'knowledge'. What I mean is, it is no legal defence for A to say, 'Sorry I did not know that if I removed the roots from the tree that it would fall over'. Ignorance is no defence in law. The basis that you can abate nuisance back to the boundary is from the judgement of Lemon vs Web (1894), and I believe the principle issues of person A being responsible for subsequent damages caused by person B's tree were judged in both Loftus-Brigham and Another v London Borough of Ealing (2003) and Holtby v Brigham and Cowan (2000), where the tests of proportional liability or in legal terms, the "principle of apportionment between tortfeasors", was applied in both a tree and non-tree related case. Essentially, these recent cases established the principle that if person A takes a particular course of action, even if this is on person B's tree, then it can follow that they could be found to be proportionally liable for any negative outcomes. So, I hope that helps clear up a few points for you but let me know if you have any queries.

Thanks - I agree I would definately go with MG now, mainly because of the colouration and shape in the unbruised area of the fruiting body. The images were only a small difference, but the extra pictures were enough to see that there wasn't the right individual frond development as you get on GF. The first posted image also looked much lighter in colour as I would expect with GF - but that appears to just be an exposure issue with the picture. All in - MG.

You're welcome.

Well, being a varient of Hazel I would hope so - but best to give it a sporting chance. Keep the area 1m radius around your power coppiced stool, organic-bark mulched, remembering to wet when dry, and protect the stump from any potential grazing herbivores. You may simply be lucky in that there is enough carb storage in the roots to get a flush next year. Only time will tell I'm afraid.

What I mean is I agree it is either Meripilus or Grifola, but I am not totally happy to say which of the two as the pictures are not great in my opinion. I am leaning towards Meripilus though, but another good picture from a different angle might help me make up my mind.

Taupo - I am pleased that you didn't rush headlong into handing in your notice. Its easy to do on a whim when you are feeling low, but sometimes the most sensible option is to hold back a while and weigh up the odds before committing. It sounds like your mate was thinking along the same lines and talked you round, so good for both of you. I assume the wait to see if they change their approach to you, following the resignation of your second in charge is the week and a half grace period you are giving them. My thoughts are to not just sit back and wait for the changes, but to use the impact of the other chap leaving as a way to manipulate the situation to your favour. Have a sit down, but informal, chat with either your HR or one of the offending bosses and lay it on a bit - but mainly talking about the views of the other guy. What I mean is, discuss how he came to you and said how their actions were making him unhappy, how they do a certain X and it affected him by Y etc. all of which compounded to make him leave. Of course, you should discuss the things that are getting to you, but do so in a way that you can offload the problems on the chap that left. The reasons for this, is that you will get a real sense of whether or not they are likely to change their attitude to management in the workplace. If you sit back and just watch for the next week and a half - they may not even recognise that there is a problem and they will just carry on as before. So, use the momentum of the situation to your favour. Try and force some positive change by pointing out why they were bad managers in the other chap's opinion. If they act on it in the next week and a half, then it may be all the best for you. Otherwise, you will have given them a chance and they blew it, so you can then move on with a clear conscience and not look back. Either way its a tough spot to be in, so I wish you all the best with your choices.

I live in a high radon area - apparently. The village is classified as such due to a single and brief radon event somewhere else, 10 miles away and 25 years ago. You can get radon detectors, like smoke alarms for places like your cellar or wherever, but to be honest in our case, I've just not seen the need.

Hello JMMorris, To be honest, you answer your own questions in your post. I don't think you need professional advice - you just need some reassurance! Re-read your own comments below and I will expand on them: So, the lean is not new. I would expect the trees would already be on the ground if they were previously vertical and now they *suddenly* developed such an acute angle. Trees are self-optimising structures which means that they will grow and develop in such a way that if their structure detects there is an unusual stress, then the structure will grow to compensate for the stress and therefore alleviate the problem. These trees have grown with this lean (for whatever reason eg sunlight etc.), but the structure has mechanically adapted to deal with the lean as the trees grew. Therefore - assuming there are no compounding factors eg a large decay area in the stem, then the lean is simply nothing to worry about. You believe that they have a large taproot. Well, surprisingly they most likely wont have a taproot beyond 0.8m depth (typical for this species). Deep taproots tend to only form on broadleaf trees on (very) sandy, free draining soil or more commonly on Pines. I would expect that your trees have broad, widely proliferated, lateral rooting systems, which in fact would provide more anchorage to accommodate these leans then a taproot system with fewer laterals. I have found a nice paper on the root systems of red oaks that you may want to have a read through - purely for interest: http://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/sites/harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/files/publications/pdfs/HFpubs/paper21.pdf Again, wide lateral rooting systems, as would be the case for these trees, are better for anchorage - so another point in favour of the trees are fine to stay as they are. Finally, you state that "There is no mounding or other external sign that they're in immediate danger of falling". Good. I believe you. Just because you are a 'layman' don't assume that you can't have a valid opinion on the structural safety of the trees. You can see everything there, I only have the picture to go on, but by what you are saying, and from what I can see in the image, I have no reason to not believe that your observations are correct. So rest assured - it looks like you will get to enjoy your trees for a lot longer...

Tree - I'm not convinced either way. Just down to the quality/angle/detail of the picture. Do you have any other images?

I agree Sloth - not an immediate terminal case, *but* those fruiting bodies are very tight into the stem and a reasonable size so the decay in affected roots may be extensive. In truth, the only real way to tell will be a root excavation job at various points looking to the underneath of the root for decay extent - or investigation by TreeRadar which is amazingly expensive and good luck finding a contractor in the UK. With either method you can make a more informed decision.

That is staggering really!

I'm sorry to hear about all this. I work on subsidence cases in my consultancy and they really can be long drawn out affairs when the offending council is being like this. Unfortunately I have seen this bullish approach before. I really wanted to clarify what exactly had happened regarding the subsidence, as quite often folk come on here spouting issues with subsidence when it quite clearly is not. In your case however, you state some of the most commonly occurring problems, so I have no doubt you are absolutely correct. Some of Chris' advice above is spot on, although I would raise a slight counter issue. Root barriers are mainly effective when they are installed at the time of planting. In fact, research has shown that remedial root barriers are more commonly ineffective then otherwise, as even with root barriers at depths down to 2m. In essence, the effected tree will regrow root structures following oxygen-rich macropores in the soil in an attempt to stabilise its structure, seek nutrients, provide starch storage etc. Following this process, the roots can grow under and resurface on the other side of the barrier (even below 2m in some cases), and the original problems, although prevented for a while, may ultimately re-continue. Obviously, this is not an ideal solution to your problem, so should be discounted by the council. Notwithstanding the efficacy or otherwise of the root barrier, there is the issue of tree stabilisation. Legally standing, should you prune the roots back to your boundary thereby destabilising the tree, and this leads to a catastrophic failure of the tree at some point in the future, you would potentially be liable. There would of course have to be a connecting series of events ie the roots are severed, storm winds at the exact angle, passing motorist at the precise time of tree fall etc. however, if the tree failure could be attributed to the loss of the roots - then yes, the fault for this unfortunate event would lie at your door. From the other perspective, I can see why the council are trying to retain the tree with pruning ie taking care of local amenity values etc., but also there would most likely be a negative impact on the site following tree removal. You would most likely get soil heave on the site, that is, additional swelling of the soils as the tree is no longer pumping the additional water away, so the soil become so saturated that they literally expand upwards - again in to your foundations, and this could cause a secondary phase of damage to your property. Heave situations can go on as long as 5 years before the site develops a new way to deal with the additional water that the tree is no longer removing. If the council were to remove the tree and a heave situation occurs - again any new damage could be attributable to their removal and therefore at their cost to repair. This could be part of their justification in why they are reluctant to remove the tree. My personal opinion, and please bear in mind 'forum advice' and the fact I have not seen the site etc., is that I would also most likely recommend removal, but attempt to gain a legal agreement with the council on due responsibilities for repairs/damage should soil heave become a factor at a later date. This is certainly what I would argue for and particularly as insurers appear to be involved already, there will be the insurers solicitors that you should bring in to deal with this side of the issue. All the other information you have been given in the posts above about the TPO's is correct. I empathise with your ongoing situation, so please feel free to PM me should you want to discuss any elements of this matter further.

In Urmston, hmm. Did you ever go to Corkers?