Frimsley

Following the change of law on 1 October, this one's now out of date. The updated version is at http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/protectedtreesguide.pdf

Text size is interesting one. If you're using firefox you can quickly adjust the text size to suit your own particular combination of screen size and eyesight. Press ctrl + + to increase, ctrl + - to decrease or ctrl + 0 to return to the default. This doesn't work in IE6 on this site (I've a vague recollection that it will in IE7). The reason it doesn't work in IE6 is that the size of the text is defined in absolute terms using either pixels or points. Good practice in accessibility says you should define font size in relative terms (using % or em) rather than absolute, so that the user can decide how big they need stuff to be. But this can make it very tricky to get the design to work. The easiest solution is probably if you need bigger type, get a decent browser Despite the hiccups it's a nice job though. I've just checked on my Asus eeepc 901 with Firefox and it works fine on that.

Another thing Steve. I notice someone else has commented on page load time. The pages are now generally over half a MB in size. This one, as I write, comes in at 668kB. 475kB of that is in the 72 images, and 170kB in 12 external scripts. I should look at trying to slim this down. Notably, the timberwolf animated gif alone accounts for 110kB, and the rather nice gradient tree background another 57kB. A slowish mobile connection is really going to struggle with this.

Could be an issue with the version of IE. I see the problem on my work machine with IE6. IE, particularly earlier versions, use a non standard concept of the 'box model'. Consequently, given the same width specification IE will display things slightly wider. I think you just need to tinker on a test bed. Increase the right margin on main_content to start with. You may want to use conditional comments (eg <!--[if lt IE 7]> ) to include a different style sheet for IE only once you've sorted it. It could also be a nasty issue with floats that is a complete pig to debug.

I've only looked at this thread so far, but the main content has been pushed down to start below the bottom of the right hand column of ads (IE6, WinXP). It's fine if Firefox. This is usually down to tweaking some of widths specified for divs, and then making sure you test in a wide range of different browsers.

Cyril Hart is the classic single tome, but is somewhat outdated these days. The Forestry Commission publish a range of stuff, much of which can be downloaded from their website as PDFs (http://www.forestry.gov.uk. Some possible titles to look for: Forest design planning: a guide to good practice Creating new native woodlands: turning ideas into reality The "The management of semi-natural woodlands" series

Trees in residential gardens are exempt from felling licence requirements, along with orchards, churchyards and "designated open spaces" (under the Commons Act 1899). The legal definition of a garden is constantly developing. The recent Rockall v DEFRA appeal (see http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/2408.html if you're having difficulty getting to sleep) seems to have widened it somewhat. Rockall successfully argued that an area of alder regen he cleared from a large plot was indeed part of his garden. The OP's question doesn't make it sound like a garden though, unless this is a backlands development. Those who reckon the FC are less likely to prosecute than an LPA are, I fear, deluding themselves. Not only are the FC hot on prosecuting, they're lawyers are rather more used to doing it than LPA lawyers, who have an awful lot of other legislation to worry about. Don't take the chance.

The council can't dictate who does it anyway. A consent is issued for a specified operation, not a specified operative. Although conditions can refer to the standard of the work (usually in terms of BS3998), they can not refer to who carries out that work.

Why would you want to use the planning portal to email? It's hideous. It drives me up the wall. If I were going to go to all the effort of trying to fill out the form on the PP, I'd just submit it. But I can see a lot of advantages to emailing a form if it means you can avoid using the PP. And you're not the first to ask. It is certainly legally acceptable to email the form. I'll hunt around and see if I can find something to help.

Well it's easy to confuse a council Standard application forms became a requirement for most types of planning application some time back. But because of the nature of the TPO legislation it wasn't quite as easy to make the forms mandatory. It required a change of legislation. Quite a few councils seem to have been confused by this. The fact is they couldn't insist on the use of a 1App form for TPOs in May, nor on sending of 3 copies. Now, though, they not only can insist on the use of the 1App form, but don't have any discretionary power to accept an application which doesn't use it. Only 1 copy though.

The new regulations apply to England only. In Wales you can use the 1App form, or the Planning Portal, if you wish, but it is not mandatory.

Whoops, I completely missed the word 'or' in that sentence. Apologies for slandering your accuracy:blushing: I think the point I'm making is that level of evidence is about the only area where there is scope for discretion. Everything else, not just the use of 1APP, but the inclusion of requested information, plans, reasons etc is absolutely required. See for example para 6.38A of the Blue Book addendum: It's worth mentioning that if an LPA refuse to validate something you think is valid, there is the option of waiting 8 weeks and then appealing against the non-determination. Although I suspect most of the time it would be less hassle just to send in what they're asking for.

Not true. All applications must be submitted on the standard application form. However, they do not have to be submitted using the Planning Portal. They can be submitted on paper, by email or by fax as well. You can download application forms for your local LPAs from this Planning Portal page from tomorrow. To clear up what appears to be some slight confusion here, this does not mean that there are changes to the dead, dying or dangerous exemptions. The requirement to submit supporting evidence if the reason for an application is related to tree condition is concerned with applications that are not covered by the exemptions. Another point I've seen mentioned elsewhere here is the suggestion that some LPAs may 'exercise discretion'. There is limited scope for LPAs to exercise discretion. In particular, the Department of Communities and Local Government has made it clear that there is no transition period. From tomorrow, applications not conforming to the new regs will be invalid. PITA as this may seem, there is a reason, and it relates to Tony's third point: If you submit a half baked application and it is refused and you appeal, you will not have an opportunity to submit more evidence during the appeal. It is in everyone's interest to ensure that you get all the information in at the start. The one area where there is discretion is that of supporting evidence. Guidance suggests that where the amenity value of a tree is so low that consent will be given anyway, there is no point in insisting on evidence. The problem is, of course, that the LPA won't know that the amenity is low until they go to see the tree, which they often won't do until after the application has been validated. Another important point to remember is that you must give reasons for the work. This isn't actually a change, not for more recent TPOs anyway, but is likely to be enforced more rigorously.

To us, perhaps not. But to the consumer the methods you use to sell your work create a first impression. They are the only thing they initially have available to make a judgement on. If you use sales techniques more usually associated with the less reputable, you risk being lumped with them in the consumer's mind. Incidentally, which site cautions against leafleting? I can think of two (including my own) that suggest any one who knocks on your door and says "I was in the area doing some tree surgery and noticed that the tree in your front garden has a bad case of branchitis and needs work..." may be less than reputable. Especially if he offers to tarmac your drive at the same time. But door to door leafleting is a tried and tested marketing technique. Dozens of take aways round our way use it. Dunno if it gets them any work, but it certainly keeps the paper recycling guys in work.

Here's my tuppeth... Consumers expect companies to have websites these days. It's seen (erroneously) as a sign of a genuine company. I would say until recently YP fulfilled a similar function. I got very little work out of YP but it somehow seemed like if your weren't in you were assumed not to really exist. You can't get work out of a website unless you get traffic to it. Achieving this is a mixture of writing it carefully to maximise your search engine rankings, and advertising your site. So spending money on getting the site up is only the start. You'll still need to spend money on getting people to visit it. A small YP ad with your web address is a start. Buying links on a big site, or advertising through Googles AdWords scheme (gets you a link alongside relevant search results in Google) are good places too. And of course, if you're going to use the web to get work you will need to be prepared to check your email occassionally and follow up leads. Back to search engine rankings, swap links with mates too. It might seem odd to put a link on your site to a competitor's site, but actually it makes some sense. Most people don't arrive at a site from links on other sites. They get there from Google. And Google's rankings are in some part influenced by how many other sites link to a site. So if you and a competitor swap links, you boost both of your rankings. You'll get far more extra traffic from the increased rank than you will loose customers following your link to the other guy's site. And mine? Nothing to sell to the public anymore, but it's http://www.tree-care.info

Well having just had a letter from the electricity company telling me they're putting 13% on the price, I can't see a problem with the price of logs going up to. After all, energy is traded on the world market. That's whe the increase in prices of gas, oil and coal thanks to the Chinese demand is affecting the cost of my electricity, despite the fact that the company I buy it from only buys renewably sourced electricity. Problem is, when the price of gas generated lekky goes up, the wholesalers buy up renewables, pushing the price up. Demand for wood fuel is likely to increase. The Forestry Commission seem to be pinning there hopes for the future of forestry on building the wood fuel market on the back of sustainable sourced wood fuel being near carbon neutral. I think you can expect to see increased prices for logs in the next few years, alongside increased markets. Given the work that goes into producing logs, it wouldn't surprise me at all if many arbs started to sell their unprocessed cord straight into chip processing plants as the wood fuel supply infrastructure develops. I'd question whether smaller setups can actually add enough value to the wood to justify the labour by converting it themselves. By the way Zenfordinner, what rate of VAT are you charging. Logs are fuel, so if your selling to domestic customers it should be the lower rate of 5%.

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/GCNwalesv4.pdf/$FILE/GCNwalesv4.pdf http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/england-protectedspecies-newt.pdf/$FILE/england-protectedspecies-newt.pdf http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/Guidancenote34protectedspecies.pdf/$FILE/Guidancenote34protectedspecies.pdf and various other bits and pieces on the FC website.

The significant thing about the Guide to Good Climbing Practice is that it is endorsed by the HSE as representing industry best practice. Following it should be deemed to meet with the requirements of the Work at Height Regulations. Given that status, it's a pretty rubbish state of affairs if it's out of print. Amazon have one used copy, so rush...

Well to split hairs TOs are Local Government Officers, not civil servants, but I digress. As I pointed out, only 30% of UKTC subscribers are TOs. So the issue with the other 70% is? Many TOs already advise customers to use AAACs, or issue the "Choose your arborist" leaflet on which my site's advice is based. You're right, they are public servants. And the public expects the service of receiving some kind of advice on selecting tree surgeons. Without the resources to go around checking up on local arborists the only thing the council can do without incurring unacceptable liability is to recommend the use of someone who has been checked up on by another organisation that can resource these checks. This is not pre-selection. It is not about requiring anything. It is about offering advice. A council cannot, for example, attach a condition to a TPO consent requiring that the work is done by an AAAC, but they can advise that the AAAC list is a useful source of competent tree surgeons. What's more, the site makes it clear that there are competent tree surgeons around who are not listed, and offers advice on recognising them. Liability. Cost. Splitting the fragmented industry further. I seem to have been through this with you and Yorkshireman countless times, eg http://www.arbtalk.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13350#post13350 I'm sure as hell not going to be travelling to Suffolk on my day off to assess your standard of work and then not charging you for my time in doing so. So you might as well pay one of the existing schemes for assessment, if assessment is what you want. Well I'm sorry you take offence, but in the end it's your choice. You can submit to ongoing assessment or not. If you do, I'll list you. If you don't, I won't. But I hardly think it's true that because you choose not submit for assessment I'm labelling you as a cowboy. Or do you not feel you are covered by the paragraph "There are many competent tree surgeons who choose not to take part in these schemes." I would say that the only people I hint at possibly being cowboys are those who: Solicit work door to door Advertise "topping" as a service - topping is harmful to trees and good arborists will not carry it out Use only a mobile phone number or can not be traced to a permanent address If you feel offended by that list, I'm afraid I'm not going to apologise.

Roller: why? Yorkshireman: Ever heard of copyright? The UKTC, by the way, is not "primarily used by local Arbo officers". Of 529 current subscribers only 159 use a .gov.uk address (and at least one of those works for the DCLG). One of the UKTC's strengths is that it a right mix of people - TOs, consultants, contractors, educationalists, students. Not a lot to do with "What have the AA done for us" though.

I'm glad the domain's gone to a good home. I sat on that one for years wondering what to do with it

You could try this tree-care.info post Since I'm in shameless plug mode, those of you who use RSS readers might like to note that there is an RSS feed of tree-care.info's 'Industry news' available. And those who have news about stuff from time to time might like to note that you can send press releases to newsdesk [at] tree-care [dot] info

It's not something to subscribe to at all. Listing is free to AAAC, ISA CAs and TrustMark registered companies. It's merely an attempt to bring these lists together in one place, and to make it easy for consumers to use. The so called 'Kite Mark' is a British Standards Institute trade mark, not in the gift of the AA to use for anything. The AA are working towards becoming a Trust Mark scheme operator. Trust Mark is a government endorsed scheme for recognising reputable trades people. Personally, I think it's going to be important once it gets off the ground. Principally because the Trust Mark 'brand' is likely to become widely recognised as consumers see plumbers, builders, electricians, joiners etc displaying the logo. Let's face it, your average consumer has no idea what it means to be an AA Approved Contractor - they have no idea what 'Arboricutural' means, come to that. But Trust Mark will become widely recognised because of its application to a wide range of trades. Of course, they'll be lots to criticise. You'll have to reach and maintain standards to be Trust Mark registered. And you'll have to pay for the assessment and administration of the scheme. So it won't be to everyone's taste.

Yeah, me too. I suppose technically there was always a fence, but when I first went it was just the one that kept the cows in the rest of the year. I remember being rather surprised when stumbling across fields in the dark I suddenly realised that I was surrounded by tents.

Contact the guy who co-ordinates the tipi field and offer to bring a good big load of firewood