Bundle 2

ER....you just did the course and claim not to be aware of what & how to record LOLER records...? Were you asleep>!

Shots 2,4 &4 (esp3 & 4 ) are strangely evocative images...(anthropomorphic). Nice! Dont want to stir up the ol'debate unnecessarily...but the Pholiota have been discerned to separate species only by microscopic identification...thats not to say they cannot be recognised in field identification...but I was reminded of this in the OP question!

I agree, it is quite a worrying thought that the conditions could be held over your heads so to speak, post renovation. Presumably. once works are signed off, the conditions are still to be met. I would think it might be worth getting some legal assistance, if only to ascertain what the relative party positions are likely to be should you wish to flex your muscles so to say, and remove trees as might be reasonably expected as they impinge and encroach on dwellings. This I say also because it seems the council planners have claimed ( according to previous post by yourself DaveyB) that the trees represent a "woodland" and although not protected by land charges, are defined in terms (by legal precedent) that might make the renovation, itself bound by conditions related to the renovation (conditions) the sort that would make removal of any saplings against the condition. In fact, I wonder if you couldn't refer the planners conditions. citing an unduly onerous requirement re: the trees/woodland in connection with the planning app/consent on the grounds they appear to have overeached in the assessment of the nature (definition)of the wooded area....? Either way....

Well then, there it is I would say! Planning does not apparently rely on removal of trees,. I am surprised that they would wish to curtail further the usage of the woodland but reading between the lines ( I am no expert ) by allowing renovation by way of granting planning, they take the view that a change of usage is the obvious consequence. By making it a condition of planning that you seek permission for the subsequent removal of trees, it seems the LPA feels the duty to protect amenity value is so served. Ask yourself what the end gain from removing the trees is...If it coincides with the buildings renovation and usage, I suggest you did not submit a proposal that satisfies your needs. The LPA has agreed to renovation and protects against "change of use" I still think your best way forward is as has been said several times now in this one thread Im afraid.... "Talk to your council people"

They cannot have agreed Planning permission without the removal of (did you say a dozen or so) trees? Permission will have have included provision for this if that is the case. ( And not just your take on it) I think you must be misreading or relaying the info incorrectly. Refer the Planning and conditions as they are on the permission granted...

Im sure scared has many meanings or perhaps it is the infidelity of which David spoke in the above post but the Baobabs were also used as a prison tree. The accused would be restrained inside the hollow overnight on their journey's by the law as they transported their villains to townships to face justice. Before this., they were smnply held captive in the tree's depths by command of village elders for some wrong doing or other.....Not an association that fits naturally one with the other (birth and prison!) but nevertheless, when needs must I suppose.

Thats quite funny but I guess potentially quite worrying at the same time! Great pics. Thanks 4 posting!

Exactly...if planning want landscaped scheme ( should the build be subject to the post permission approval from planning and not be possible without their removal) I would say they do not have the permission they thought they had ( Not that they have no permission- there is a difference if you read the text?) " do the build & wait for a year or two & then get a cutting licence to do the trees you want to remove. "---you could do this and then come unstuck as the condition for removal is dependant on planning, not the FC...they seem to have left themselves a loophole requiring their signing off before removal of trees. If the OP is literally right, planning are not happy to do this.... Id want it in black & white..what permission grants and all conditions. Not good practice what you looking at there. I hope it works out for ya'.... Janey's advice would seem more pragmatic and most likely to procure some discourse towards a solution that is agreed and certain.

Kick the smokes Tony...its all money saved mate!

Hope you are taking the correct precautions whist aloft mate.....esp in front of the kids. Tim

Sounds a bit vague...I would say you haven't got the planning permission you thought you had ?

V.cool.....lots of aurivella. It seems to emerge a little higher from the ground as a general rule..(?) The one in your hand is an impressive beast! Very entertaining mate!

Yeah...good info, good question! Check your Shigo...you'll find he comments on this and other pruning issues of relevance.....Modern Arboriculture.

I would have thought that if the tree is a hazard and you deem the risk high enough for removal, it needs removing; not waiting for winter> Just my thoughts. If it were to cause an incident, once you are aware of it as a manager, you would have to show that you had priorities that took precedence for reasons of resource available etc....May well be your situation, dunno!

I wrecked a knee in a road accident in 1992...Doctors reckoned I wouldn't bend it after 10 years.Arthritis. Been okay with it...one of the least affected joints . Look after yourself though. You will not gain the necessary strength overnight.

Weird ( man!)

Dont like the looks of that there split forming on the stem...(frame 6) Looks fairly recent to me!

No dramas mate...Ill just ignore your cryptic take on life and rather peculiar sense of amusement.

You are talking (arbtalking) absolute rubbish mate... You have clearly stated that you dont use a chinstrap and remove the ear protection as soon as you get a new/replacement helmet. By your own reckoning...you are the one who appears to find PPE recommendations "incomprehensible"- Stupid and beyond the wit of man..? No! Its for your protection. You do not need to try and belittle such things to make yourself feel big.... It was a legitimate question that has generated some useful links and insights from other members on Arbtalk. PPE recommendations are a part of H&SW act & MHSW regs...and regs in their own right....."The Personal Protective Equipment Regulations 1992" Why dont you do yourself a favour & just shut up if you got nothing to say mate?

The books need burning and a new order putting in place...well! Not quite. But we are infants in a world barely thought of?

Right...starting to appreciate the angle a bit more then! ( between the ears and such? ) Cant see the point of dumb remarks made in humor that serve only to confuse or satiate an ego...Sorry. My failure to get to grips with Internet/written dynamic.... You know what I mean though,,,nowt clever about a richardhead?

There's science here abouts.....! No well...I for one appreciate the discussion. Really!

This is typical Mesterh comment....cant be bothered to express my sentiments...surprised you still find the need to make such remarks. SFW...?

Its what I use aswell...but look at that rack of ventilation drilled in both sides of it....still trust the "leaflets" ? I think not. Salt, hcl...dont care what you call it...I started my climbing career doing nightshifts...in the dark, 12hr shifts; railwork. What a gas....Doesnt mean I think the HSE know whats what...or my safety officer Im afraid! The fact remains that HSE is lead by the sector industry it comments on....If it hurts, HSE are last to find out about it..You gotta use you noodle when it comes down to it... btw..what is chemical designation of salt if not Hcl...I even looked it up!!

It also says that you can climb using a "rock climbing" type helmet....I would take it with a pinch of HCL. Rock type (caving) tend to be without side impact resistance- one of the issues with the Vertex (vent & others) . The AA published "Guide to Good Climbing practice" updated in 2005 ( to include Work @ Height ) may help clarify any issues. At the end of the day, you gotta comply with your "Safety Officer"- regardless .