Chestnut reduction..........

[tommer9]

Excellent- thanks guys.........seeing as how my middle name isnt 'self confidence' i was expecting slightly less favourable comments lol!

[sean]

Excellent- thanks guys.........seeing as how my middle name isnt 'self confidence' i was expecting slightly less favourable comments lol!

 

what aload of s@[email protected] been on the cornish stingers prior to doing that?..................................

 

 

i jest.......good work mate!

[tommer9]

..........you[/email] been on the cornish stingers prior to doing that?..................................

 

 

 

I cant believe nobody else mentioned anything

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:thumbup:

[ad15]

tom,, you did well to translate what the TO wanted.....

 

should have shouted i'd have come down to take pics...:-)

 

nice work,,

[Dean Lofthouse]

I dont think he has used enough "throughs" and the are too many "straight joints" it horrible.

 

 

 

 

 

[tommer9]

I dont think he has used enough "throughs" and the are too many "straight joints" it horrible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah- it was MEANT to look like this........

 

 

but seems to have ended up looking like a tree:confused1:

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

As everyone quite rightly says a damn good job well done...great to see, thanks.

 

In terms of your spec, which is generally very good, I would perhaps have introduced the term 'selective', in relation to the canopy (or 'crown') reduction which is then further prescribed and maybe have provided more detail in relation to the deadwood removal, i.e. 'major deadwood' (circa 50mm dia., or greater, at the base and/or longer than 500mm ...for instance).

 

Also mention could be made to relevant industry standards, i.e. BS 3998 & European Tree Pruning Guide, in the context of 'works to a minimum standard of (where appropriate)...etc. etc.

 

Sorry, as I said no reflection on a damned good job and endorsement of such from your piers is the best applause of all...BUT you have mine too!

 

Tree work specifications is a regular area requiring improvement on AC assmts as either none BS3998 compliant terminology is used, obviously sometimes this is approriate, and often the works are not adequately prescribed. I always suggest when writing a spec you enviasge another contractor having to undertake the works...puts quite a different perspective on things.

 

Sorry, gone a bit off thread here!

 

Cheers all..

Paul

[Hawthorn]

To AA Tecci: But Tom didn't do the spec; as stated the TO provided that to the customer, Mrs ******

 

Tree looks good anyhow mate!

[tommer9]

Thanks for your reply Paul.

 

The spec i put in the thread an extract of an email the TO sent to me to follow, as opposed to my application. We had discussed it on site, and when he emailed it he just said to use it in my aplication.

 

However, i have to admit that i would have probably only submitted something similar to that....

 

All input gratefully received.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

As everyone quite rightly says a damn good job well done...great to see, thanks.

 

In terms of your spec, which is generally very good, I would perhaps have introduced the term 'selective', in relation to the canopy (or 'crown') reduction which is then further prescribed and maybe have provided more detail in relation to the deadwood removal, i.e. 'major deadwood' (circa 50mm dia., or greater, at the base and/or longer than 500mm ...for instance).

 

Also mention could be made to relevant industry standards, i.e. BS 3998 & European Tree Pruning Guide, in the context of 'works to a minimum standard of (where appropriate)...etc. etc.

 

Sorry, as I said no reflection on a damned good job and endorsement of such from your piers is the best applause of all...BUT you have mine too!

 

Tree work specifications is a regular area requiring improvement on AC assmts as either none BS3998 compliant terminology is used, obviously sometimes this is approriate, and often the works are not adequately prescribed. I always suggest when writing a spec you enviasge another contractor having to undertake the works...puts quite a different perspective on things.

 

Sorry, gone a bit off thread here!

 

Cheers all..

Paul

 

The trouble with correct and more specificaly SPECIFIC terms and specs is they tend to be absolute, and nothing is ever absolute in this game. allowing for SOME but not too much interpretation for the contractor means he can give or take a little as and when he is in his work position and more suitably placed to make acurate assumptions on "best form and function"

 

scenario- remove deadwood over 50mm diamerter only

 

but what if decay pockets exist at the base of 30mm deadwood? or a bit of 10 mm deadwood is over a green house?

 

what if the climbers a freshly qualified student legaly able but not so sure of himself, hes going to stick to the speck isnt he.

 

just to balance out the rigidity of spec