Gary Prentice

I'm not sure that that would be much of an issue. I've some cypress root that was growing between the bricks of a small brick planter. I bought it home and threw it on the window sill. Full sunlight and a radiator below. I can't distinguish any ill effects of rapid drying apart from a few minor cracks originating from axe wounds incurred getting the root out.

quite possibly, but with a full load that would be a puller, compared to a transit with the equivalent volume - which would (probably) be O/L but wouldn't look it.

I think that pretty much exhausts the money making opportunities for this one. Jokes aside, that's not a bad idea, to poison before felling.

And grind the stump so that no-one trips over it.

So it's lifting the tarmac, that's only to be expected and if it was left be, it would be unlikely to be of any detriment to the tree. The problem comes when someone wants to make good the distortion in the footpath to prevent trips and falls and then tears away half of the root system to relay a new path! You need an aerial inspection to assess the extent of any decay in or around existing pruning wounds. The results of this should go to deciding further action, if any. The discolouration on the stem if just lichen by the look of it. No concerns, just an indicator of air quality.

Mulching is always a good idea, the universal panacea

No-one would know what you're carrying if you didn't sign write your name all over it

Got any photo's Steve? Staging might be more stressful than hitting it once. Every cut made will be compartmentalised, then that cut gets cut off again, and again. It's a big call on the trees energy resources. Can you mulch the tree - to give it both a health boost and improve it resistance to drought. Get the tree in better health before surgery? e

It was a bit more complicated than that. The case was fairly straightforward legally, but the LAs legal team made an error in attempting to blame the victim, the candyfloss construction of the conservatory. That shifted the medias focus on the case with a nice soundbite and shifted public perception of the legalities involved. In law, you have to take the victim as you find them. It's like battering someone over the head with a bat and then arguing that because they had an unusually thin skull they died, whereas someone with a normal, average, thickness of skull would have survived. So, the crux of the claim that the foundations were inadequate, with the already known tree roots/subsidence problems, wasn't going to be particularly great in the first place. If the trees roots weren't abstracting water from the land the foundation specification would be immaterial. This is the problem with medias reporting, the public get the wrong idea about all the principals of the case and in some situations trees get removed out of fear when it is unnecessary or there would never be an obligation to do so. Burge V South Gloucester Council - Candyfloss Construction.pdf

If you've got an opinion, don't be shy in expressing it!

Duncan Slater's done quite a lot of work on this.

I doubt it, considering that lots of LAs don't even have up to date interactive mapping or their TPOs online as it is. There is a data.gov site where the LAs have provided information - but even that is incomplete and or inaccurate. It's a great idea for an app but I can't see how you'd get all the information to create it.

come on elaborate. What did you install etc

Why would anyone not, if the app was guaranteed to be accurate and up to date?

And grind the stump out surely.

Is that Wisewood?

This thread seems apt for a Welsh dragon causing traffic problems... https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/25ft-dragon-thats-causing-havoc-15772469

Mattheck has a real thing about monoliths. He's vehement that they shouldn't be taller than a metre or two when adjacent to paths and roads.

Okay. Just to check, is the tree owner and the garage owner the same person?

Thinking a bit more about this. I think that there is a couple of possible scenarios as to how this will go forward. 1. If the garage was rebuilt and didn't require any official planning department input, I'd guess that the LA would argue that the build was undertaken without consideration of the protected tree. So the owners actions have basically created a situation where a conflict is arising which potentially could lead to loss of the tree. I stand to be corrected, but there may even be grounds for the LA to pursue a contravention if the tree eventually has to go. 2. If a planning application was required to rebuild the garage it may be a whole different story and the LA will probably go through everything with a fine to comb to ascertain that both the plans were sufficient to identify the potential for conflict, current or future, between the building and the protected tree. Further from that, is the construction exactly as illustrated by the plans ( is the exterior wall closer to the tree than shown by the plans?) With the information, about the history, provided it's impossible to draw conclusions. If the planning department have messed up (not unknown) by not identifying the conflict while consenting the build, in my experience they'll probably cave and consent removal. But, if the finger of blame can be pointed elsewhere, then it's going to get messy.

The candy floss conservatory?

Did any of this rebuilding go through planning or was it done on the original foundation without any planning department involvement?

usual practice is to use the most suitable height for the known grazers from the start. guards provide some benefits to increase growth rates and there's nothing wrong with a small tree in a tall guard. Generally the shortest guard suitable for protection is used due to cost

Did I ever post that story about the elm stump, excessive explosive and the E type?