Jump to content

Log in or register to remove this advert

Recommended Posts

Posted

No. I gave up the moral high ground years ago. I attempt to change people's minds, but if they are adamant....we get the job done. If you don't, someone else will.

  • Like 2

Log in or register to remove this advert

Posted
Great analogy. 
 
What if the hitman has bills to pay and is having a slow month so needs the wedge?


Depends who the “subject” is I guess.....

Conservation work is great but..
how many arborists can earn money without starting a saw or chipper up? .
  • Like 1
Posted
I do believe that the AA have had complaints about contractors simply contacting the local planning office to check for TPOs. 


Almost had this, now I'm simply checking as part of a vti report I'm doing at the address 🤔[emoji6]
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, skyhuck said:

They shouldn't need to, if they are dealing with professionals.

Ditto, they shouldnt have to take out insurance to prevent being stabbed in the back. I would be absolutely livid if I got a pro tree firm in to take a tree down and they decided to get a TPO placed on it!

 

TBH, I cant believe that TPO's can be placed on trees without the owners consent, it is ridiculous IMO. Not only does the tree owner have to live with something they dont want they now have to pay for the privilege of keeping it there ie, yearly/ biannually tree reports to keep in with the insurance, general maintenance etc, all because someone else likes the thing but doesnt have to put up with it!

 

Never have had any problems with taking a tree out whatever or wherever it is if that's what the customer wants. I have though on plenty of occasions advised against removal if not necessary ie owner thinks its dangerous and thinks it needs felling, on advice about the health of the tree they change their minds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Posted

Talked a couple of elderly owners out of having some trees removed, after a cowboy builder had persuaded them that the trees were dead. When I confronted said builder, he said he was only going to cut them down, (and be paid for it) because they were dead. I asked him why he thought they were dead. His reply, "They've got no leaves on them." The conversation took place in the middle of winter about broad leaf trees. I'm not convinced he had functioning brain cells numbering in double digits. He did however have the gene markers identified for greed & underhand dealing..

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Posted
9 hours ago, Mesterh said:

Ditto, they shouldnt have to take out insurance to prevent being stabbed in the back. I would be absolutely livid if I got a pro tree firm in to take a tree down and they decided to get a TPO placed on it!

 

TBH, I cant believe that TPO's can be placed on trees without the owners consent, it is ridiculous IMO. Not only does the tree owner have to live with something they dont want they now have to pay for the privilege of keeping it there ie, yearly/ biannually tree reports to keep in with the insurance, general maintenance etc, all because someone else likes the thing but doesnt have to put up with it!

 

Never have had any problems with taking a tree out whatever or wherever it is if that's what the customer wants. I have though on plenty of occasions advised against removal if not necessary ie owner thinks its dangerous and thinks it needs felling, on advice about the health of the tree they change their minds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Out of interest, do you feel the same way about Listed Buildings?

Posted
4 hours ago, felixthelogchopper said:

Out of interest, do you feel the same way about Listed Buildings?

That depends.

 

Do people buy a non listed building then someone else decides it should become a listed building? 

Posted
That depends.
 
Do people buy a non listed building then someone else decides it should become a listed building? 

If say so...doubt they were listed when they were built.


If say our system is very much less than perfect but the concept that even if you own the land you should be able to do anything you want with it regardless of what the community wants doesn't sit right with me. I reckon there should be some process and control when people want to alter the landscape/surroundings I.e open cast mining, clear felling woodland, building a new hotel etc etc.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  •  

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

Articles

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.