Amelanchier

Its the only thing to do mate. Remind them of section 6.37 of the blue book. 6.37 An application under a TPO must: (1) be made in writing to the LPA, (2) state the reasons for making the application, (3) identify the trees to which the application relates, by reference to a plan if necessary, and (4) specify the operations for which consent is sought. This information has not been superseded and will not be until the regs change.

The UN were busy

Done. I'll stick it in the post in the next couple of days.

Evening all, I recieved a free CD from the ISA today entitled Introduction to Arboriculture: Tree Worker Safety Its aimed at those considering or studing for the ISA Cert Arb qualification, one I took a few moons ago and one that I'm still proud to have. Anyhoo. I don't need it so I thought I'd post it on to someone who does... First to ask shall recieve.

Ideally; Full leaf and Mid-dormancy. Some people worry that certain species "bleed" when pruned at certain times of the year but its no big deal. Pruning dose is more of a concern - Shigo's Modern Arboriculture explains about energy levels and tree age / stress and strain. A lot of good basic concepts there that will do you better than a specific guide.

At a recent TO meeting a rep from NATO indicated that the regs would to change in April next year. That's what we're working towards anyway. So not exactly round the corner.

It cannot be legally required to submit either S211 notificaton or a TPO app by 1 app until those regs change. The regs that need to chage are known as the :- Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 1892 The Town and Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999

'Orrycareya 'orreycarnah?

Araucaria araucana

Massive guess - but might be Coccus hesperidum?? Here's some shots of some I found last year...

Is that on an Apple? I'd guess Wooly aphid Eriosoma lanigerum? Though I have to say my knowledge of P & D affecting cultivated apples is weak at best...

I'm going with: 3 - Flammulina velutipes 4 - Trametes versicolor

Good shot pete.

Smelt / felt like Prunus lusitanica but it was a bit dark.

No, but I did sample the whole top shelf, have a dance, an arguement or two, fall over in a bush and wake up in a premier travel inn with an angry girlfriend and no money.

I was at a wedding reception in Chester the other day at some great Hall (Willington?). After I got appropriately liquored up I accosted the receptionist about the numerous Ganoderma fruiting bodies around the base of a Q. ilex immediatley over the dining room. Bless her, she listened intently as I slurred on about the need for professional inspections and selective delignification... she even wrote some stuff down (probably went straight in the bin after I staggered off!) Now that is sad.

Ha. The Emporers new harness...

And yes I know my handwriting is like a childs...

Like this. Pretty reliant on low friction though as Mr Witt wil tell you.

I'll draw a lickle picture...

Something I'd been meaning to post after watching Stuart Witt try it out in the Masters up in sunny Preston... After setting up a M-redirect on the end of a slippery limbwalk, SW tightened the system up a bit, sat back into the system and began to pull himself along what was basically a retrievable traverse. Swish. Its got potential and one day when I finally get my harness back on I'll have a go with my pantin for super laziness... (I know, I know... you want photos. I see what I can do)

Yeah, seems a bit odd that doesn't it... Now I don't survey thousands of trees at a time so I can afford to plot significant trees and record them as having "No visible significant defects". I'm of the opinon that recording the fact that you have no problems is of value. I suppose that doesn't scale well to larger surveys but the draft doesn't make that distinction. The other issue I have involves the description of re-inspection intervals and whilst the topic has been discussed heavily on the UKTC forum I think its important to bring it up here. Section 7.2 of the draft suggests that the interval of basic inspections (those undertaken by someone with the ability to spot obvious defects and hazards) should be reflected by site usage - fine. However, it then goes on to note that a 2-3 yr cycle may be appropriate for less frequented sites! I wonder how that sits with those of you out there who are park wardens or manage estates??? For expert inspections, which presumably would be undertaken less often on less trees the recommended minimum interval is 5 years. I've recommended trees be re-inspected in 10yrs in the past. Parkland sweet chestnut, a bazillion miles from anything falling to bits in peace. A decade is a blink of an eye to them, but my report would not have followed the BS?!? The fundamental issue is that the draft tries to fit itself to all types of inspection so as to cover all bases. The problem is that in doing so, the detail of the guidance is lost. Its worth having a read even at the draft stage and making your self heard. Definately check out Lindas link. A far better structured and cogent arguement than my remblings.

Laz. I note you use the word "...will..." and Linda uses the word "...may..." There's no arguement here.

This forum is not a soapbox. You are under the assumption that you have rights that you do not actually have. Further to this I would draw your attention to the forum rules http://arbtalk.co.uk/index.php?pageid=forumrules . Specifically rules 1 & 4 within which I have highlighted the relevant text. 1. Arbtalk is a privately owned website and reserves the right to remove or restrict any user without notice. Additionally unwelcome are persons with political or controversial agendas, and persons who use the forums to link to, or promote, other websites and/or products without express permission. 4. No attacks, insults, or flames** - be it on someone's person, religious beliefs, race, national background, sexual orientation, or whatever. This is VERY important. If you have a problem with somebody, do not flame them on our website. Take it somewhere else. No flaming of ANY kind is welcome here. The quickest way to get banned from our website is to break this rule. This includes public posts, group posts, private messages or contact methods supplied by the member of this site. When you signed up, you agreed to follow these rules. Whether you consider this to be censorship is up to you but I would suggest that it is irrelevant. In addition, please note that instead attempting to shame Arbtalk into allowing you to post what you like, I would think a better approach would be to contact Steve with your concerns.

We have the PICUS Lite and its not light! its exactly the same at the full fat version with a big suitcase full of wires. As for accuracy, I think Dirty Harry said it best... "A man's got to know his limitations."