Chris at eden

The thing about monetary gain comes I assume from the court precedent, not the dictionary. Didn't ask. If Dave Dowson says that is how it is, that's good enough for me.

You are right. My advice is go with treelife. They are a really good training provider. I've done loads with them. PTI, tech cert, L6, bats, mortgage reports, etc. Always go back as never disappointed with what I get out of the training. Cant say that for everything I go on.

Yes. Both Myerscough and Capel Manor do L2 online. Realistically you will need L4 to start doing tree reports though. You may get away with L2 for basic risk surveys (at a push) but once you start looking at mortgage reports and BS5837 you will need at least L4, L6 preferably for the latter as it is covered better at that level. Just my experience, others may disagree. For info, about 60% of my work is 5837 and about 30% is mortgage reports and damage assessment. The remaining 10% is risk so I wouldn't want to rely on them. That may be that I don't really focus on risk surveys with my marketing as I don't like doing them. Find them a bit boring.

Whether it is considered as conversion or theft is dependent on what you do with it. It you sell or make a monetary gain from your neighbour's apples which happen to fall into your garden that would be theft. If you make an apple pie and eat it that would be conversion. That is how Dave Dowson explained it when I was doing my L6. The owner of a tree can arrange access to collect his apples at a mutually acceptable time. Bit bonkers really as if the neighbour says no you would have to go through the courts by which time the apples would be looing pretty naf.

ISA cert arb would be fine. I did that before I did tech cert which is the old version of the L4. I had done national certificate as well but that pretty much covers the same stuff as ISA. Have you spoke with treelife they are doing L2 now. You will need a certain amount of under pinning knowledge to do L4 so you are going about it the right way. Good luck

I'd go with dominance and lack of usable outdoor amenity space as your reasons. Liveability conditions is a valid reason for working on protected trees. If you go with structural damage you would need technical data to support the application (if they TPO) and being in Glasgow the risk would probably be low compared with somewhere such as London. Please don't take this as professional advice as I haven't looked at the site in detail, its just a general view of what may be possible or likely. I think your local tree consultant will be Jules who posts on here so he may be able to offer better or more site specific advice. Cheers,

Make the journey mate, its well worth it and only a few days over the year. I did my L6 with Treelife at Westonbirt, one of the lads travelled in from the Isle of White, got the first ferry. Treelife have a very good pass rate at L6, about 35% the year I completed I think. That sounds low but check with the other providers what there pass rate is. It wasn't anywhere near that last time I heard. I personally think the Treemail route would be tough without the regular sessions. It tough on motivation anyway. If it was a choice of treemail in March or day release in Sept/Oct I would wait. You will probably get done quicker anyway. Just my opinion based on L6. I would think the L4 workload would be less but I am told its still pretty heavy duty. Hope this helps Good luck

I drive through the Black Country on a weekly basis on the way to the M6 for work. There is a huge piece of land near Bilston which was part of this Black Country Urban Forest which has just be cleared and is now being regarded fir housing. Bit of a waste on one hand but to be fair, even though it was planted with small trees (mostly willow) it still didn't look nice. Interesting post, I didn't realise the greening project went back that far.

Great response Ed and spot on. I agree I would base the appeal on dominance and how that affects liveability, usable outdoor amenity space etc. The only thing I would add to answer the original question is that the fact that the tree was there first makes no difference. That is an issue that should have been considered when planning consent was given. Also agree, the LPA should not be changing the spec. Cheers,

as above!

Good point. I forgot about that bit. Long thread!! Still think you would struggle to invoice though.

They should offer than branches back I agree but there is no requirement to communicate with the owner prior to works. This would apply if it was a building overhanging as the owner should be given the chance to move it. This has been tested in a court setting and there is no requirement to communicate first with trees. It would only be trespass if you entered the land and I don't see it being fly tipping. They are ultimately his branches which you are obliged to offer back. My understanding (or rather Dave Dowson's - I have it from him) is that you can place them back carefully. Could be an issue though if damage is caused in the process but that is a separate matter. Cutting past the boundary or topping is I agree a definite no no!

You would lose every day of the week with this approach. The tree owners tree is creating a nuisance and the neighbour has a right to abate. This is an established legal precedent.

Its not in Mynors but it makes sense. If they belong to them then you would just be returning the arisings. Mynors actually says you are obliged to offer them back but it doesn't say they don't have to accept them that is just assumed. No way is it fly tipping. If the owner threw them back it would be.

Looks a bit narrow for a footway as it probably wouldn't be DDA compliant so could be open to criticism if something happened. I would think a 3D no dig solution would create problems with the levels but you could look into flexi pave if a path needs to be there. I've not looked into it in detail (been meaning to) but I believe its made from stone and recycled tires so actually flexes and has good green credentials while still being porous. May be worth a look.

Treesource is all one word by the way, damn auto correct.

Hello mate, Have a look on tree source, its an online book shop. It will give you some ideas. The subject is huge and diverse in reality so it depends what you want to learn. You could look at something fairly generic like the arboriculturists companion or the ISA certification guide, with the latter you can take an exam and get a level 2 qualification if you wanted to. BS3998:2010 - tree work recommendations is important although some people tend to ignore. When you get more into it you may want to start looking at some of the more technical stuff like Shigo or Mattheck for biology and bio-mechanics, or Biddle for subsidence issues. If you want to go that in depth that is. Cheers and good luck

No worries. Pollarding should ideally be initiated when the stem diameter is no more than 50mm, but in any case no more than 200mm. (BS3998:2010). Anything outside of this will most likely lead to physiological dysfunction and decay and should only be considered to alleviate the risk of catastrophic collapse. I may be wrong be that looks like a maiden tree to me with a stem diameter closer to 400mm so technically however you reduce it, it wouldn't be a pollard. Light reduction works would be a crown reduction, heavy reduction works would be topping. The result of pollarding from an early age is that a bolling (knuckle) is formed from which the re-grown shoots are pruned on a cyclical basis. If done regularly this limits the exposure of cross sectional branch material (i.e. small cuts) and the cuts occlude quickly. The resultant wound wood the covers the cuts is also made up primarily of parenchyma cells which are highly resistant to decay due to the presence of phenolic compounds. The result of small wounds and wood with a higher than average level of resistance to decay significantly reduces the risk of fungal colonisation. Conversely, topping of a mature tree leaves large wounds which in reality may never occlude. Although the wound wood will form around the edges the cross sectional branch material remains exposed for many years and so open to colonisation. There is a detailed description of pollarding within BS3998:2010 if you wish to read more. Hope this helps, Cheers,

I've seen those given on appeal on more than one occasion. Is that the front of the building or the rear? What is its public visibility like?

This will clearly open a can of worms which everyone seems to be trying to avoid these day but I will say it anyway. That would not be pollarding!

It doesn't stack up either. If you build a drive up to your boundary and your neighbours tree causes damage, it doesn't matter what was there first you can still claim for the damage.

You would have no chance of defending that through the PINS. The appropriate time to consider that is at the planning application stage. If its inappropriate retention based on proximity, shading and dominance you would struggle to defend it. After all, these are issues that should be considered by the AIA.

Good advice. Make sure you get your reasons right though. Your main issues seem to be shading and dominance.

Soil dwelling pathogens such as honey fungus and Phytophthora sp. are associated with sub-optimal soil conditions. Not a bad way of describing the site really. Amazing that it survived this long.

I agree with Jesse, the leaves are showing shot hole symptoms from Pseudomonas infection. Although as far as I am aware the holes are as a direct result of the bacteria (Pseudomonas) not a secondary fungus. Tree is as suggested, Prunus padus.