Gary Prentice

Right as usual! Saul, OSM is correct. The colouration that you see in your 'olive' ash is due to various chemicals that the tree 'infuses' into the dead 'heartwood' as a form of protection. There's various methods that different tree species use to protect itself from pathogens, initially compartmentalising itself with physical and chemical barriers, and this is one of them. Whereas as 'spalting' is entirely created by the fungi themselves. Sorry for the poor explanation, not had much sleep. And if I'm teaching my grandmother...

He just takes better photos, that's all.

Looking at the brick type, of the original wall- not the engineering type used in the repairs, I'm not sure that the tree is older, or that much older, than the wall tbh. There's no chance of patching the length of wall within the owners property. It looks like any supporting pile/piers would have to be next door, simply because of the roots and root mass. In fact, foundation locations are looking to be the major issue.

Since you know it's a squirrel, what exactly is the point of asking?

Hey, I don't have too many pleasures in my life atm due to my health, but one that I do have is baiting you

Well this ain't much of a game, when he won't tell ya if you're right or wrong

There's not a wasps nest in there, is there?

I had a bit of a dig around the tree saturday, in an attempt to clarify where the roots were going, but the major roots were so close to the internal face of the wall I couldn't do much more than get down a few inches - the main stump mass is just right against almost the entire length of the wall. If, and it's a big if, we could get foundation piers in - to support a cast-in-situ beam, the rebuilt wall would probably have to be single skinned to, temporarily, allow for future growth. The owner doesn't own the land outside the wall - so a new wall can't be re-sited. The gate pillar is distorted, I'm assuming there's a root either beneath it or applying lateral force to either the foundation or the brickwork itself. So where or how a new foundation and support pier for a beam would actually go I have no idea. I met the TO this morning, pointed all this out, asked if he had any suggestions for an engineering solution (Not the LAs job to do that) Still wants to retain the tree but he's getting his boss back for a second opinion. The appeal has to be submitted by tuesday, currently no idea as to an engineering solution or the cost of one. I've suggested that we demolish the pillar and the tree owners part of the wall to either identify if or where beam supports could be sited, but I need to confirm my clients agreement to that. I don't know whether to push for the demolition, ask the council to review their decision and then reapply to remove if they still refuse and then go to appeal subsequent to that determination. ?️ but the clocks ticking ever on.

Sorry! I wasn't even there, but just from what I've heard it still makes me laff...

What's that biblical verse? About reaping and sowing?

Do tell!

Book deal? Or prison sentence?

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.

That's surprising, you'd think that the ascospores present would rapidly re-infect any new growth. I based my previous reply on a recollection that I have that new foliage/young foliage seems particularly susceptible - I may be acting on a false memory entirely though. I think it is going to be a steep learning curve with this disease and the best ways of dealing with it is still to be learnt. One thing that I don't know, is the differences in regeneration between stools cut to the ground and those left higher. I wonder if there is any differences in re-infection rates between high and low stools.

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

Would they? I think that young/juvenile growth is more susceptible to the fungus so it begs the question whether a healthy, vital tree that is resistant/tolerant would still be physiologically so, after having been cut off at the knees. I don't know if it's been around long enough, in the UK, that there's actually an answer to that question.

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?