TPO'd Sycamore.

[Tom D]

IMO what laughable is that statement!!!!!!

 

So having expensive equipment is what makes you a pro???????????

 

And the ability to produce a hight quality sketch is not a skill??????????

 

I suppose a report has to be typed???????

 

What utter crap!!!!!!!!!!

 

If these are what, IYO, make for a professional, you are IMO a fool!!!!!!!!!

 

I have done 4 5837 surveys this year, I have no CAD, and tbh in 3 of the 4 cases the CAD plans were submitted to me by the architects, I was there to be a Professional Tree Inspector, not a surveyor. I am confident in my ability to assess the condition of the trees and that is what my clients wanted.

 

I charge £450 a day BTW.

[gmanntpo]

Amen to Skyhuck and Tom D!!!

[skyhuck]

:I charge £450 a day BTW.

 

Would you charge a full day for that one tree Tom?????????

[Tom D]

Would you charge a full day for that one tree Tom?????????

 

depends on travel time, But realisticaly if you allow 1.5 hours travel, 0.5 hours inspecting and 1 hour writing up thats 3 hours so say £200.

[skyhuck]

depends on travel time, But realisticaly if you allow 1.5 hours travel, 0.5 hours inspecting and 1 hour writing up thats 3 hours so say £200.

 

I feel thats fair.

 

If some one does 3 like that and "makes" £600 in a day I think thats great, as they are, IMO, offering value for money, IMO that is very different to a day rate of £500.

 

Its really a form of piece rate.

Edited September 27, 2009 by skyhuck

[Tom D]

I wish I enjoyed it more, if there was enough work out there, which there may or may not be, you can earn £4-500 and all you need is a laptop and a pen and paper. There are two man crews out there earning less with chippers, trucks and all the gear.

Just the way of the world I suppose.

[Amelanchier]

I suppose a report has to be typed???????

 

What utter crap!!!!!!!!!!

 

At the risk of fully derailing this thread past TPOs.

 

I once conditioned an AIA/AMS for an extension within the RPA of TPO Sweet Chestnut. I recieved a handwritten, badly spelt, load of waffle, and a indecipherable and inaccurate plan from a tree contactor. When I contacted the applicant to explain why this wasn't good enough - she replied "...but he's only a tree surgeon, what'd you expect."

 

I expect nothing more than the Council's design consultant, highway engineer, building inspector or environmental consultant. I shouldn't be wasting my time trying to decode appalling spelling, trying to second guess jumbled grammer or measuring every tree on site and replotting them in the right places with the correct canopy spread/RPA.

 

So why shouldn't it be typed Huck? Its a professional report!?! For other professionals to read - if we as an industry want to get past the "he's only a tree guy" attitude, we have to beat them at their own game.

 

I read Arb reports done by national consultancies and one-man bands, the content is about the same. The difference is that the larger organisations are usually a little more aware of the policy framework and have a shiny print job. The actual on-the-ground-tree-stuff is the same but I suspect the appearence of the reports, the tangible glossy bound sexing up, gets the bigger clients. It plays the game - it says we're in your league, we're not "only a bunch of tree guys".

 

Or girls.

[Amelanchier]

To get back on the rails - the guidance in the amendments to the blue book is pretty clear on the standard of evidence required... (my emphasis in bold)

 

"6.40B Where the condition of the tree is not severe enough to use the dead, dying and dangerous exemptions written evidence must be provided with the application describing the nature of the problem, its impact and justifying the work proposed.A formal report is not required."

 

I'd suggest the extent/depth of this report should be proportional to the amenity value of the tree. A lot that I see fail to fulfil the complete VTA criteria and resort to making precautionary guesses about the strength of the remaining parts of the tree.

[skyhuck]

 

I expect nothing more than the Council's design consultant, highway engineer, building inspector or environmental consultant. I shouldn't be wasting my time trying to decode appalling spelling, trying to second guess jumbled grammer or measuring every tree on site and replotting them in the right places with the correct canopy spread/RPA.

 

So why shouldn't it be typed Huck? Its a professional report!?! For other professionals to read - if we as an industry want to get past the "he's only a tree guy" attitude, we have to beat them at their own game.

 

 

 

Tony, I am not saying it should NOT be typed or you should NOT use CAD.

 

But I know people who produce beautiful copper plate hand righting, a report written by them would, IMO, be as good if not better than a typed one, to suggest that is in any way unprofessional, is I feel is very wrong.

 

And if some one has the ability to produce a high quality, accurate sketch plan, then they should be encouraged to use that skill.

 

What you describe is unprofessional and unacceptable, regardless of the method used to produce it.

[gmanntpo]

I agree, but it also says this:

 

Arboricultural or other diagnostic evidence (eg

from an entomologist or pathologist) must be provided where the health of the

tree is affected, eg by the presence of pests, diseases or fungi. If the reasons for

the application relate to the structural condition of the tree (eg damaged roots or

structural defects within the tree or defects that may be of concern to the current

or future safe retention of the tree or parts of the tree) then arboricultural evidence

must be provided to support the proposed work.

 

All roads lead to some kind of report IMO, even if its written on the back of a fag packet.

 

Cheers Gmann