Amelanchier

Personally, I wouldn't be inclined to give the HA solicitor anything at all! Take some legal advice and speak to your insurers.

Wow, what an amazing post to leave us with. We're really gonna miss you.

Oh I thinks that's more than likely huh Ian?!

Available since yesterday, not in force until 6th April (see attached). Will post more detail when I have some time... uksi_20120605_en.pdf

This one. Thetford Forest - 1 Oct 2011 Nothing too serious for a group taster really. Got a short/quick solo duo soon which should be a bit more of a challenge; M&M Duathlon That looks fairly brutal - I doubt the swim will be much fun!

Don't count on it. Few mates and I scheduled a two day orienteering race for the first weekend of October last year for exactly that reason (lower temps). Except it hit 29 deg C on the first day and 31 at noon on the second - not a cloud in the sky for two days. Add in a nice bit of ITBS and it was murder squared.

Firstly check with the LPA that the conservation area has not had an article 4 direction. This 'upgrade' removes some or all permitted development rights and can mandate planning applications for pretty much anything you care to build/alter. If no article 4 direction exists, tennis courts may be regarded as permitted development (i.e., no need for a planning application) provided they meet the criteria required for other 'outbuildings' or enclosures. Anything beyond this will need an application. A list of the requirements and a handy interactive guide can be found at Planning Portal - Outbuildings Another thing to be aware of is that while you don't need a planning app to implement your (or your clients) permitted development rights, this doesn't give you a free pass to ignore the conservation area requirements. Those requirements apply to roots just as much as they do to the above ground parts of the trees and therefore, in my view (and the large majority of LPA enforcement teams I suspect) is that excavation for construction within the RPA of a protected tree requires notification under section 211 of the TCPA (and a six week wait unless you can wrangle an exemption in the usual manner). So although you won't be required by the LPA to follow BS5837:2005 (because you won't need an application) you might be advised to use it as guidance to avoid damage to trees (and prosecution!) and your construction.

Stem gall. Likely to be the result of an infection by Agrobacterium tumefaciens.

I disagree with your kit taxonomy Pete. The RW is an entirely different genus to the bit of string; loading the RW is integral to the climbing system insofar as it reduces the loading on the hitch. Without it you increase the loading on the hitch. Clearly I'm not a user, but perhaps those out there that are could clarify - I would imagine that the hitch is tied to account for the RW and therefore less wraps are used than one might ordinarily consider appropriate for solo use on a single line? Once tied with the RW, would you be able dynamically load the hitch without melting anything if you removed it? Of course in reality possibilites are junk and probabilities are all that counts, and for the record, given the materials and loading involved the likelihood of failure of the RW is negligible IMO.

Shirley it can't be a climbing aid if its going to be loaded as part of the main attachment in a fall? You could define each seperate component of a climbing system as an aid if you consider them in isolation.

Good plan. Make a formal complaint to the council as well; that will typically be investigated by a different department. You might want to point out that the Local Government Ombudsman takes a dim view of maladministration (see LGO complaints 01/B/15370 and 06/B/16269). You might also wonder if they would agree that the local rags would relish the "faceless bureaucrats mislead elderly couple" angle?

Not in every LPA. In our region we have at least three different committee models dealing with TPOs and at least two of those are distinct from the planning committees.

Hedgerow regs would not apply to a laurel hedge.

Also, if we are capable of having a sensible discussion, I wonder if anyone is aware of the machinations of one Eric Pickles MP our rotund Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government ? I draw your attention to the opening salvo of the Localism Act 2011 [my emphasis in bold]... "Local authority’s general power of competence. (1)A local authority has power to do anything that individuals generally may do. (2)Subsection (1) applies to things that an individual may do even though they are in nature, extent or otherwise— (a)unlike anything the authority may do apart from subsection (1), or (b)unlike anything that other public bodies may do. (3)In this section “individual” means an individual with full capacity. (4)Where subsection (1) confers power on the authority to do something, it confers power (subject to sections 2 to 4) to do it in any way whatever, including— . (a)power to do it anywhere in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, (b)power to do it for a commercial purpose or otherwise for a charge, or without charge, and ©power to do it for, or otherwise than for, the benefit of the authority, its area or persons resident or present in its area."

This is truth.

Once an Order is confirmed it "...shall not be questioned in any legal proceedings whatsoever." (Sections 284 (1)(e) & (2)© of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)) That said, you could stump up a lot of cash and take a case to the High Court on the basis that the LPA's process (but not the decision) was in error but you'd need some clear cut malpractice. I saw Charles Mynors speak at the AA conference last year and IIRC he mentioned that LPA's frequently get away with quite appalling housekeeping regarding serving Orders and that he was only aware of approx. ten such cases making it to the High Court - of that only two were found in favour of the claimant.

Changed!

I would argue that my objectivity has no value; clients instruct me for my professional opinion. While that may be partly based on fairly indisputable objective information (i.e., tree positions, physical dimensions etc), essentially the whole purpose of my involvement is the subjective. Anyone can throw a tape measure round a tree.

You do realise that both your area and company name are attached to that statement and that Tree Officers browse these forums too. Also that there are members here (perhaps even a moderator?) that have decent professional relationships with this TO and that they might be insulted on his behalf.

No, this is what you said (I have replaced the actual word used within square brackets), taken straight from the email that dropped into my inbox at 7.29am on the 12th Jan this year... "I posted [expletive] and had the whole post removed how is this any different? And when i posted about rules being different for certain people, I got lambasted. This is my case in point." I would expect someone who had found the expletive to be offensive to have said so. You didn't. You wanted to make a point about how unfair things are and how badly we have treated you. Given how few mods there are and how many posts there are to check for swearing I think the membership can make their own minds up how that comes across.

...or don't come back - not a problem either way.

The report-a-post function is there to help us to ensure the forum runs smoothly, not to complain about how unfair the world is.

I would guess the propping of the smaller Pines to be aimed at ensuring they don't develop any natural lean / sweep rather than to prevent failure?

Like I said, the mechanism of CA protection (as it relates to trees) is to allow the LPA to protect valuable, significant or important trees using TPOs. Therefore if it cannot be TPO'd, there is no point notifying. (Do you notify if grinding a stump?) Where you are unsure if the LPA would call a certain assemblage of woody plants a tree, it might be an idea to ask them if they considered it so with a view to making life easier on yourself, however the law is deliberatly vague on that point. IMO if it looks like a hedge, is composed of a common hedging species, is located on a boundary, has been maintained as a hedge, lacks susbtantial height, and does not include identifiably individual trees then it is probably a hedge. Therefore note section 2.3 of the Blue Book (a.k.a. Tree Preservation Orders: A Guide to the Law and Good Practice) "2.3 A TPO may only be used to protect trees and cannot be applied to bushes or shrubs, although in the Secretary of State's view a TPO may be made to protect trees in hedges or an old hedge which has become a line of trees of a reasonable height and is not subject to hedgerow management." Note that the above does not define any of those terms - thats the job of the old bloke in the wig should you decide to ask him. Just to add, that the LPA is not the agent of enforcement of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or any of the Habitat Regs; the Police and the CPS are.

Exactamundo.