Amelanchier

Steve. I think Pete needs to see treelander.

We've decided to toughen up and send a lot more apps/s211 back recently. Mainly because of a lack of information. Sometimes it quite difficult to work out what the applicant/notifier intends to actually do! Previously we would give them a call or arrange a meeting and agree an amended application/s211. It just takes too much time and it isn't fair on the people who get it right as they often don't get as much consultation. So now it goes back with a nice letter explaining things. The 1App has also given us the option of requiring reports before determining TPO apps (not CAs til regs change). I don't know about other LPAs but I think we're going to play that card very carefully.

Oooh Petey, that'll go so well with your pfanner jacket. You'll be the talk of the town.

I'm a ninja. Really, I am.

Ha yep, bit late I know but it slipped my mind! Everyone else can use what they like but its just the sponsors... well. It's actually just you...

Pete, I touched some the other day, does that count? It was very pretty.

8 wrap prussik made of hessian? Don't worry about it Steve - the rules (that are written in my head) say that sponsors must climb on the three-knot-system... with a 12" bridge on the blakes...

Now I haven't checked so nobody quote me on this but my understanding is that as of the 6th april the 1 app form became the only legit way of submitting a planning application. As works to tpo trees are applications they are covered by this change. In CAs though your are notifying the LPA of your intentions and therefore until the T&CP 1999 regs are amended you are perfectly within your rights to use alternate forms of notification. However, I personally would get used to the new forms - they ain't going away!

Nope. Not til 2009 if memory serves...

Cheers Vdub - was that one of those "pull-the-ivy-away-and-oh-great-look-what-I've-anchored-into" moments??

Not a bad idea Andy, cheap to implement. Though I'm not sure it would generate significant amounts but I suppose everything helps. The problem with personal sponsorship is that the sponsors would reasonable want their brands/logos represented and the climbers/techs shirts have to represent the main sponsors. Could be a clash of interests. I don't think there are any straightforward solutions

Nod, Thanks for your comments. I had some vauge comprehension of the costs and I hope my query wasn't interpreted by anyone as some sort of righteous freedom of information request! I was just interested in the mechanism behind the change itself. I'm currently organising an event and if I imagine scaling it up to an ISA TCC level I know that I'd make a horrible mess of it - so my hat is officially off to all those involved in that process! I take your point about who's "...putting on the show..." - If I had been a bit more reflective before posting, maybe I might have realised that myself. I still think there is a danger in pricing new climbers out of the comps. I suppose we'll have to see - I hope I'm wrong mate.

The second tree in the second post is truly amazing!

No worries, but it won't be a template but a complete recent report. You'll have to strip out what you don't need. I'm afraid I can't be arsed Paul & Greg - Check your emails

Corylus giganteum

Yep, if you PM me your email, i'll send you a recent one.

Ash trees are often extremely sexually confused! Sometimes only male flowers, sometimes only female. Sometimes both. Sometimes all female but for one branch!!! Sometime male on lower branches and female at the top.

That would be the flowers emerging.

What diameter cord are you trying??

Bit of a mixed blessing IMO. I understand the forms are causing some issues. I've had to send quite a lot back recently, mainly because none of the proposed work was quantified - ie, no indication of how much of a reduction / thin / lift.

Could be fibre buckling. Why don't you cut it longitudinally - you might be able to see the buckled fibres if it is.

Well duh... If it wasn't in the spec why would they? I think you have missed the point of the application of this technique. It ain't for mrs miggen's apple trees.

Check you pm's

Just dragging this kicking and screaming back to the top to say the deadline for enrolment forms is this weekend. Mainly because we won't be able to get the tickets out to you soon enough after that. We have over 40 booked competitors so should be a good turnout - don't let that put you off turning up on the day though if you haven't booked a place!!

Thanks for stepping in Colin. I'm sure I speak for many when I say that I appreciate the approachable and accessible nature of your use of this forum. It goes a long way to dispelling the feelings of disconnection and isolation that can occur between organisations and the people they aim to represent. The comps have long suffered from low uptake of new competitors and although many are put off by a lack of confidence, it takes new climbers to encourage new climbers. Additionally, without wishing to detract from the considerable achievements of the top guys & gals, I think that its actually the middle and lower ranks that draw these new competitors in. They show that its possible and achievable to compete. Quite how many of those ranks are ISA members I do not know but I'm sure that not all are. I'm concerned that this increase of competition fees acts too bluntly to encourage ISA membership. I appreciate it for its transparency but think there maybe a danger of pushing too hard to secure ISA membership with counterproductive results. There are also issues for those who choose to only compete in one competition as the numbers just don't play out favourably. (Unless the revised membership rates are below £25!) Again, as this is exactly what many novices do, the increase seems to me to hit the future of the comps at its most vulnerable point. A full and detailed explanation of the mechanism behind this increase might be beneficial to lessen the blow, as I'm sure many will not be aware of the increase until they turn up on the comp day! Just a few thoughts as I'll be unable to attend the AGM.