Gary Prentice

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.

I wondered that but don't know what's involved. TBH, from Big J's discription the path wants moving/shutting today.

From the early reports of highway works in, I think, Devon and elsewhere I'm beginning to think that we're very under-prepared for the severity of this. I was reading the Tree Councils Action Plan and thought I'd see what Manchester had put in place. Absolutely nothing online apart from a early publication to aid identification of the disease. I think the public will delay removing infected trees, they will become very difficult to remove, every man and his dog will see an opportunity to earn a few bob felling ash and it'll end up as a clusterf*** that impact the industry for years because of accidents and insurance claims.

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!

Why? Does Stubby wear his trousers around his neck?

Bit stuck on the reason for the decline of this Pine(?) I saw today. Most of the lower limbs are dead, it's an edge tree with no over-shading of the lower crown . Currently all the foliage is to the top of the tree, but what's remaining is browning off. What's odd is the discoloured patches on the stem where the cambium is dead or dying. It's noticeable that the cambium death continues from the large lower lateral limbs into the stem below. I'm not that up on forest conifer species pathogens but would have thought a needle pathogen would affect the needles, lead to branch death which the tree would compartmentalise at the collar etc. This seems to be extending further. There's no FFB's or any evident of root issues present.

Read that somewhere previously. Something else that my missus remarked on is that when sizing trousers (for waist size) many men of Asian descent measure them against their neck !! Trousers are buttoned up and then the waistband is put up to the neck. I've no idea on the reasoning of doing this, but you can ponder on it for the rest of the day

Appropriate tends to whatever the local authority ask for as a replacement for the contravention. In my limited experience its normally a heavy standard sized tree rather than a semi-mature (£1000's) specimen.

Never taught that at school, but me and the missus spent five minutes working out if we were in compliance.... Simple things please simple minds

You don't know how lucky you are, in that respect

Chalara springs to mind, although admittedly there is some speculation that it just blew across the channel to our fair isle. DED has been imported twice. I know, on elm timber with bark. Xylella fastidiosa, seems to be one of the greatest threats currently and ,iirc, there's a ban on a number of herbaceous plants and shrubs atm Remembering that we do live on an island, do you think that it is a good idea to import pots and containers of soil, carrying who knows what?

Do try to keep up mate...