Gary Prentice

If only. The TO is reasonable and I appreciate what has been said today, but without digging up next doors garden, the verges and the clients - going to a lot of expense and trouble, I can't see how I'm going to provide any evidence that will change anything. I don't know what the relationship is, even if there is, with the neighbour. The last thing that the client will want is to highlight the damage to the wall or to let them know that they claim against someone else to rebuild it. I need to be cautious atm with what I do so that I don't pre-emptively create problems. Is there a 'tearing hair out' emoticon? Edit: If they'd been any legs in 'it's an old area order and removing it won't notice', be assured that would have been in the application too. The TO's hate that argument I've used it so often.

Is that the same stuff that used to be called 'dog vomit fungus'?

Bacteria growing on the weeping sap/resin from the cut stump? Although ime. it's more often orange in colour, particularly on deciduous trees.

I haven't gone to the PINs site yet to check on any conditions, but I've previously elaborated on the application and provided new information without anyone commenting on it. Don't know 100%, it's been a while. I've spoke to the TO this morning, just about the different TPO designations - he's not sure why the determination has a different TPO no. to the one he gave me when I searched. But beside the point. Yes, they'd like to retain it but if after an exploratory dig or subsequent to further information retention doesn't appear practical, he's willing to meet up and review the decision. I can't ask fairer than that. He is acknowledging the difficulties and says it was a difficult decision but it's seeming that he's happy enough to let someone ultimately decide.

I remember the CAVAT topic. The LA had an i-tree valuation done a year or to back, but I don't think they had the software itself to do the calculations. It would be fun, otherwise, to ask one of the other TOs to run the data to get an i-tree value. I'll email you. Thanks Jules.

Fixed that for ya

I'm not sure that I'd want to be the test case for that locally. I'm fairly confident that the head TO would be delighted to take me to court just to clarify the position. Still, I'd have plenty of company in the dock, me the agent, the contractor, the tree owner and the wall owner! I wonder how much liability I'd actually have as the agent, if I told everyone to cart on? Not my tree to allow it to be done, not actually doing it... I suppose that anyone prosecuted for contravention could pursue me...

I'm a bit fixated on those words 'reasonably foresee'. In the original app I said that the wall, and pillar showed signs of historic damage, and repair, and were now cracked and leaning again - apparently due, in part, to the lateral root in the photo. I acknowledged the usual requirement to seek an engineering solution but said that this would require remediation of the third parties wall as well. (Leaving it unsaid that this would be a complication- I just raised that point) I'd hope that all of that would be adequate to make everything reasonably foreseeable?

That's the way I think that I'm going, although I've never had to calculate an amenity evaluation before. Best one to use?

Despite a quick search, you're still going to have to explain what 'solus' means Kevin. An area TPO. I searched this a while back, for other reasons, and it was a bit unclear. I had a TPO date of 1986, which I used in the application to fell. I've just noticed that looking at the refusal it refers to another order dated 2018!!! More recently the area has become a bit contentious with large old properties in big grounds being developed so a newer order is kinda understandable but that doesn't explain why I was given the early TPO date. "Let it die, reduce as hazard requires, leave remains, no re-plant no TPO moving forward...." That may be where we end up! But there is still the issue of a solicitors letter arriving from the neighbour at some point.

"Dunno mate, not an easy call" If it was easy I wouldn't have posted. I watched a very public elm, in grand health, over the last 8-10 years for DED symptoms. From the first chlorotic leaves to death took two years. It's impossible to weigh up the beetle population:number of elms of a size to provide breeding trees/food source and then calculate the probability of future infection. I do know that we have very few elms, of any age class,locally and suspect that what there is will eventually die. Can you still claim compensation for additional costs, resulting from a refusal, after an unsuccessful appeal?

"owner wants it removed for a reason other than the nuisance" I was born in the morning, but not this morning The reasons for removing in the original app were that it was causing an actionable nuisance. I don't think that it actually matters if the aggrieved party has started an action in the CC or is already claiming for damages. The fact remains that my client has a liability due to the tree. It's an unmade road, so I assume that it's un-adopted. Because the neighbour fronts onto an adopted highway (to the east) and has no access along the track it's possible that my client owns either the verge just to the front of his or all of it to the east to the adopted road. I've considered the possibility of siting the affected length of the wall further to the south than it currently is, more onto the verge, with a small return to join to the neighbours. But then that part of the neighbours wall is positioned on not on their land. The wall is no longer a straight run, as it is now, someone loses a bit of land etc. It's not that simple. I appreciate the LA wanting to retain, I would in their position, but reasonably I don't think that retention is practical.

Afaik, no. Client only moved in a few weeks back. What has initiated the app to fell is that it's a narrow lane so he's wanting to remove the tree, sort the wall, pillars etc and turn most of the front garden into parking. It might have been a different ball game if they had, but I suspect that the LA would still have refused the trees removal. It's a typical response that you have to prove engineering solutions are impossible. It feels like a chicken and egg scenario, go to the expense and upheaval of demolishing the wall and footings and only then, once everything is visible, be able to prove or disprove that engineered footings are possible. And all for an elm in an area where you just wait to see if this will be the year it starts with DED. I just feel that nobody cares that he'll end up with a load of extra costs to retain a tree that drops dead anyway.

I've a week/ten days to submit an appeal against a refusal to fell and I'm a little unsure about a couple of issues, so I'd appreciate some comments, advice, experiences, etc. There's an elm situated between an asphalt drive and a division fence (picture below). To either side of the drive entrance are brick pillars. and from these a double skin brick wall (@1.2-1.4m high) continue forming the boundary with the highway. The wall from the SE pillar continues, offsite, forming the boundary wall of another property. The SE pillar is leaning and damaged, the first 6-8 of the adjacent wall shows historic damage and repair, with a 2-3m length having previously been rebuilt. This length includes part of the wall belonging to the neighbour. It is obvious that the root(s) from the elm are growing in contact with the wall, a fact that the LA hasn't disputed in its refusal. So there is an actionable nuisance, because of the damage to that part of the wall belonging to the neighbour, as well as an indication that previous damage has been repaired but whatever was done is now failing and the conflict is continuing. The LA's response is: The reasons stated for felling the elm tree within the application were as follows; The tree is growing in conflict with the brick boundary wall of both the applicants and the neighbouring property. There is evidence of historic damage. Future conflict and damage are expected. Actionable nuisance is present/will occur involving a third party. Brick pillar to the applicants driveway has been disturbed and is leaning. Life expectancy is expected to be relatively short as it is a size which commonly gets infected by Dutch elm disease. In response to these points; It is noted within the application that ‘the normal requirement is to seek an engineering solution rather than to remove a protected tree’ however there has not been shown within the application any evidence that an engineering solution to this issue has been investigated to ascertain whether or not this would be feasible in this instance. Damage caused to hard landscaping is not usually judged to be sufficient reason to remove a protected tree if there is another solution to the issues claimed, such as an engineering solution as mentioned previously. Future conflict and damage may be avoided with a sympathetic, well designed and forward-looking engineering solution. As in 1,2 and 3. As in 1,2 and 3. At present, this tree is not showing any signs of Dutch elm disease. It is noted that elm trees of this age and size are susceptible to Dutch elm disease. Due to this fact, elm trees of this age and size are relatively rare. As such it is not reasonable to remove a protected elm tree that is of good health and vitality as a precaution for a disease it may get in the future. I'm going on site this morning to have a dig around, as much as I can, in an attempt to gauge what's going on. One problem is that I can't be digging up next door and that the verge outside is in unknown ownership. I haven't got a photo of the gate pillar but it's got a fair lean and a number of cracks. I've a suspicion that to rebuild that would entail a foundation raft mostly above ground, which would then create issues with the drive levels - but that's a secondary issue at present. The real issue that I'm struggling with is the legal issue about the wall ownership. If this only involved the clients wall reconstruction/engineering solutions would be straight forward. But, with this involving the neighbours wall too it's seems more complicated. If there is an engineering solution it's obviously going to involve demolishing all of the clients wall and some length of the neighbours. Then there's the issue of who pays what? I've met a builder (the clients) on site, to try to get estimates to rebuild with, and without, the tree present, with an idea that for the purpose of the appeal I'll try to show that he costs (with the tree retained) are such that retention creates an unreasonable burden on the owner. The builder is reluctant to even provide an estimate to provide an engineering solution because of the unknowns involved. I suspect that the TO is unsure of the legalities of the issue, as in a previous refusal involving damage to a third party he was hoping that PINs would clarify it. (They didn't address that, directly, but did overturn the refusal. Normally I'd be all for doing everything possible to retain the tree, but in the circumstances I'm thinking that the legal issues and the costs are going to outweigh doing so. Thoughts please!

Only five hours? You're not trying hard enough. A skilled man can make that last all day.

A new homeowner contacted me to do some tree works, did a search before meeting her and then explained that she was in a CA and that, no, she couldn't just do whatever she wanted to do next week. She had a real bullish attitude, telling me she wasn't because her solicitor hadn't told her she was . I'll admit to being just a little smug when I asked if 'her solicitor' had also forgot to mention that the property was also recorded as being in a Flood Zone.

And here's another one for vehicles up to 3 ton which only raises the ground level by 85mm https://greengridsystems.com/root-bridge-variants/light-15kn I'm not conversant with it, the system has been discussed on another forum today.

That's a brilliant photo David

There's some good close-ups here.. https://bladmineerders.nl/parasites/animalia/arthropoda/insecta/hymenoptera/symphyta/tenthredinidae/blennocampinae/tomostethus/tomostethus-nigritus/

The house is 30+m from the road so the shortest gas connection would be assumed to be that way, whereas the tree is another 80-90m further at the end of the 'back' garden. There's some terraced cottages beyond that boundary with a cobbled track between - services to these 'probably' run along the track. But yes, possible except that the tree is 10m from the boundary and the other conifers (pine/spruce) seem largely unaffected and there's no symptoms to the broad-leaved trees nearer the boundary or the mixed evergreen hedging along the boundary. I still think that the cause is biotic.

It is. Lots of discussion on this event on UKTC yesterday and a number of the participants had done so successfully. A bit OT but it was suggested that by felling these, as intended, it illustrates how easy it is to force the removal of unwanted trees.

That's something I hadn't considered. The site is a large old Mill owners garden and the trees are at the furthest corner. Externally the ground is lower to both sides by @1.5m, a cobbled path and another neighbours asphalt drive. The drive looks old and the cobbles are undisturbed. There's no evidence of any groundworks within the garden or tree work where felled timber may have disturbed anything beneath. The only underground services I can imagine anywhere near would be land drains, but I didn't notice any u naturally wet areas. I'm not discounting it (I've no idea atm) and if I can get back there I'll see what I can discover. Thanks.Sorry about the species idS Sorry about the species I.D, I was rushed and any foliage was over several metres above me. Appreciate your, and others, ideas. What is odd is that this tree was in a group of other similar looking trees, but significantly more mature. The site is situated towards the edge of an urban area and I didn't notice any indication of rabbits, although it's a big enough, overgrown, habitat to support a warren. I don't know! I'll have to try to get back there. Thanks, Gary That was my impression. The lowest large lateral (dead) was discoloured like the stem and this continued through the branch collar down the stem. I should have got a photo of that.

To what ends? The discoloured bark in the photos is contiguous and not lifting and browning beneath when scraped. I couldn't see any insect entry/exit holes in those areas. The owner couldn't provide any history. The tree is visible, at distance, from the road and I have an idea that I noticed the group that it is in becoming sparse and/or browning off last summer. I don't think that it is drought related as it's situated at the bottom of a slope (with a solid retaining wall below), well shaded and moist.

Agree totally, I was just commenting, IME, to part of the quoted post, without going into too much depth and complexity. My bad!