benedmonds

Here we go again... http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/business-management/84816-subcontracting-same-company.html You can buy blank contracts packs and adapt them..

I was disagreeing with your speculation. Classifying a tree as a C because it is unremarkable is a reasonable thing to do. The report presumably stated that as tree belongs to a neighbour it will still need protection.. The whole point is the designer is a non arb. The arb is providing the information for the designer to use. The surveyor does NOT decide which are to be retained, but by ranking the trees gives the designer information to make an informed decision. The council may disagree that is their prerogative.. If all the trees are exceptional.... However if you are more realistic and set the bar lower, you are able to differentiate the great from the average and the nothing special. The designer will then have information that may allow them to design accordingly.

Not at all. Classifying a neighbours tree as C is going to have no effect on a development! It will still require the same protection as an A category tree. Classifying trees as A,B, C or U is obviously limited, but if you are classifying all your run of the mill trees as A's or B's there is no differentiation. The aim of an AIA IMO is to help a designer decide which trees are worth keeping and how much space they require. If you don't differentiate the ones worth retaining with the "unremarkable" then how can the designer make an informed choice?

Makes sense to me..

My guys were hedge trimming last year and a beech dropped a pretty big limb, apparently he had been under it moments before...

If the tree is "unremarkable" I would probably of categorised it as a C. However this makes no difference to the level of protection it should receive if it is being retained. I don't agree with this statement however..

Some do. Some don't. But in our business we are likely to come across the haters.. True but, this is often NOT helped by over protective Tree Officers in my opinion.. If that tree was not protected and a client asked my advice it would be fell and replant, but not with necessarily with a poxy ornamental.. An oak or cedar would be great there for 40 years. Then fell and start again, if you are really smart you might even get something in 10 years before you fell it. Urban trees don't need to and often should not be grown to maturity IMO..

Many.. It is an ash tree that will potentially grow to 20m tall with a 20m spread. It responds poorly to pruning and grows quickly. In time it will completely dominate the house, dropping leaves, that will block the gutters, be a slip hazard in autumn and a pain for the home owner to clear up. It is also likely to become a roost for birds who will deposit on everything underneath. The drive way will become evermore cracked and likely to become a trip hazard. The tree will cast shade on the house making it dark inside in the day time. The future removal costs will be significantly increased as the tree will have to be carefully lowered over the house. The resident may feel scared (with or without justification) that it is going to fail during high winds.. You or I might like to live in the shade of a tree (I have a pine 3m from my front window), but others don't. It is not an amazing tree IMO. It is going to cause issues in the future. Replace now with something else. My personal view would NOT necessarily be something that won't get large like a prunus or sorbus. But anything you like including potentially large specimens but plan to remove it when it before it gets too big...

This is our latest purchase. Not used in anger yet.. It is piped for grab and that is on the to get list.... The down side is that at present we cant tow the grain trailer we use with it. Options are to fit it to a trailer or possibly just on to a 7.5 ton truck?

"Unremarkable " is a direct quote from BS5837.. I thought I hadn't come up with it... .. Page 9 in description of category C1 trees...

I don't agree..The grading may take place first, but surely the AIA and TCP are written about the the tree stock and are directly informed by the categorization/gradings..? Fig 1 from the BS, tree survey>Tree categorization>identify tree constraints and RPA's That was my point.. If a garden tree of little value but of "moderate quality" (to quote the BS)has to be graded as a B the designers are not going to have the information to make informed decisions as to which trees are worth keeping and which can be sacrificed.. I don't understand this? The whole point of the AIA is to inform the designer which trees to protect and which can be felled. Classifying trees A, B and C is always going to be subjective. Unremarkable is my own not from the BS. The whole of the BS is subjective. . But surely our role as arb consultants is to make informed decisions easier for non arbs.

Isn't that exactly the point of the AIA and Tree Constraints Plan? It is for an Arb to inform the client/designers which trees are worth protecting, how much space they need and which are not worth protecting.. If you grade an unremarkable (all be it healthy) leyland cypress as a B1 then how will the client understand that it's an unremarkable tree that is no loss?

I would sick an appeal in, the drive is only one issue. That tree is the wrong species in the wrong place, fell it and replant with something more suitable..

I have had comments disagreeing with the categories I have assigned to trees. I've done plenty of 5837's over the years and this is the first time it has happened to me.. I admit I have fairly high standards and an A grade tree has to be a particularly good specimen. This means my B grade trees have to be pretty good quality and C grade trees are therefore everything else that is not a U. I don't personally like the category C classification as "trees of low quality" as this implies that the trees are in poor condition, where to me anything that shouldn't be a constraint to development should go in this category.. As an example this particular TO wants to classify 19m big beech (lovely tree but.) with dw throughout crown, split on trunk from 1-2m on W side and occluded bark at junction of several large limbs at 4 and 5m as an A grade tree. It is going to fail at this point at some time IMO... Surely the defects would prevent it from being an exceptional A grader? They also wanted to upgrade a dozen of my C grade trees to B including a grotty 14m lawson cypress with a snapped limb? Yes the tree is a moderate quality lawsons specimen. But surely it should not be a constraint to developed and therefore graded as a C? Would you often grade garden apples and self set field maples as B's..? I know the classifications are subjective and without seeing the trees any comments will be even more so.. Am I being to harsh on theses trees.. Has anyone experience of arguing the categories..

I know this is an old thread. But we got a bill for £450 when we hit one a few weeks back - 220mm down directly under a stump.. The site had been cat scanned and there was no indication on the pavement. When we queried the bill this was the response: We acknowledge receipt of your email dated 8th June 2015 and would like to advise you of the following: Each service pipe is designed and installed to carry natural gas safely, and in such a way that it is least likely to be subject to accidental damage. In this case, the pipe was damaged because the level of protection has been reduced possibly as a result of work (e.g. landscaping, construction of driveway). Or soil erosion over time. Please note that National Grid or its agents would originally lay gas pipe work at a recommended depth where ever possible, however surface levels can alter and it should be anticipated that the underground plant may be encountered during any groundwork. Please be advised that there is no statutory requirement under Health and Safety Guidelines to lay warning tape above the pipe. The depth of the pipe can vary for several reasons, such as location of other utilities plant which must be avoided, method used to lay the service, vicinity to main or meter-box or soil erosion over time. This is by no means an exhaustive list. We must advise that under the Health and Safety Guidelines there is no statutory requirement for a minimum depth when gas services are being laid, the depths are only a guide and pipes can be found at shallower depth. Contractors working on site should not rely on depth when carrying out work near gas services. We appreciate that you had taken precautions before commencing your work; however we would like to advise you that the use of CAT scans will not reveal the position of most modern polyethylene services, and accordingly they should be located using safe hand digging practices. Please note that the decision to raise an invoice for a damage call out is not made by the engineers but by the local network once the completed paperwork has been reviewed, and we have no record of any decision but the one made to invoice you for the repair costs. Please be advised that where National Grid are required to attend an emergency call out to repair a damaged pipe, the costs will almost always be chargeable to the person responsible for that damage. We do accept that our gas pipes are not intentionally damaged, please be advised that HSE expects contractors to meet their obligation to prevent damage to gas main/service which includes carrying out test hole during all significant excavation activities. This term is not National Grid specific and is used by all utility, groundwork and landscaping practitioners, however please note that it is still your sole responsibility to establish and verify position and route of all underground apparatus prior to your work and also to ensure that no utility services will be damaged during your work. As damage occurred to our plant we are entitled to recover remuneration of all associated costs. In light of the above please be advised that this invoice remains payable. National Grid:sneaky2:

Cost wise it was allot cheaper then the comparable TW, and similar to the Bandit as I recall. Weight wise it's not an issue, except off road and then we'd take our 190. I don't think it's messier then other chippers..

We're still using the Vermeer, seems to be holding up OK.....

Depends the photo was from bing, the other two were the councils own mapping sites.

When you use the planning portal it asks there to be a scale I think. The examples I posted are all free screen shots, edited in paint and take less time to do than draw a sketch plan.

This is the sort of thing I do. Always been accepted..

You can use print screen. Technically it is probably a breach of copy-write.. Although I think (I could be wrong) bing allows you to use their maps/photos if you reference them

Your only downside is that it you are restricted who can drive it. We have one 6 toner, three 3.5 toners, three old drivers and three young drivers. It sometimes takes some juggling to ensure a driver. Occasionally we end up with the 6 ton going stump grinding with one man and no waste and the Land rover with 3 lads squashed in to do a tree job.. The 6 ton trucks are much better suited to tree work in my opinion.

I am not sure subsidence is ever caused by substandard foundations.. but any building that has suffered subsidence WILL have substandard foundations. Otherwise it wouldn't have moved..

Our 2450 was £17,000. We have hired bigger tracked carltons (66hp) but Steve thought the 2450 was comparable..