Andy Clark

I think this has been discussed before and someone more knowledgeable than me said there was nothing to prevent this situation.

 

Would you be responsible if you removed a tree that sheltered your neighbours house, which then lost its roof in a gale?

 

Maybe my view is too simplistic, but how far do you have to put yourself out to assist your neighbour and does the law expect you too? Is it reasonable that the neighbour, being aware of the change in circumstances, takes action to protect himself?

Yes and no....

Rylands v Fletcher is probably the most suitable case for this sort of thing, but think of it in terms of cattle.....

We own neighbouring farms, and you want to graze cattle on a field next to my corn crop. Its not my job to keep your cows on your land. Its your job to make sure your cows stay on your land.

That doesn't mean though that I cant also take steps to keep your cows off my land if I feel it necessary too, but my "right" to self help does not supersede or nullify your "responsibility".

And that's often the confusion of the principle.... that the "Rights" of one person does not invalidate the "Responsibility" of another.

I'd agree. It's my belief that you cannot discharge your duty of care by telling your neighbour you are going to put them or their property at risk of foreseeable harm so that when that harm comes to pass as a consequence of your actions you can turn round and say, well I told you so.

 

No.

 

With whom and to what end.

 

On notice for...

 

Clearly

Nothing like being quoted in context eh?

I think I was pretty clear in the preceding text in my post to the bits that you've quoted that I was pointing out there were factors/variables that would need to be taken into account which would determine the answers to Kevins question in his OP - which was that did the neighbour have a DoC, and if yes could they be liable for recompense.

Obviously we NOW know that we're talking about mature crop with potentially a significant value, but that is not something that we knew from the OP...

Irrespective of that, to come back to your comments....

Has the neighbour acted reasonably?

No. We still don't know that, because we haven't determined what, if any, steps the neighbour took to avoid the consequence.

Was there any consultation

With whom and to what end. From the neighbour to the aggrieved landowner. There is a world of difference between the neighbour rocking up one day and felling all without due thought, to the neighbour discussing his/her plan with the landowner to reach a position that suited both parties. For example the landowner may have sought his own professional advice - which may have highlighted the possible dominos once the exposure had changed. The landowner may have simply objected to the felling completely, to the point that he could have sought an injunction in the Courts to stop the felling from happening. Or they could have discussed and reached a compromise to fell in compartments over a course of several years...... various scenarios.

Without consultation though, none of these things were given the chance to take place. With consultation, these things could have been pursued and the outcome could have been very very different.

Did the neighbour put the owner on notice?

On notice for... see above.

Has there been a material loss?

Clearly. Yes, we know that now.

In the absence of any case law from the forestry boys (and notwithstanding FL issues), the underlying principles really still remain the same.... the neighbour has the right to do as he pleases with his land, but in doing so were the steps that he took proportional and AFARP to avoid any foreseeable consequence?

Not something we've been able to determine yet, as there is still lots unknown.

In terms of Criminal Damage, I think that would be very tough to establish as you'd potentially need to demonstrate mens rea that the neighbour intended to harm the remaining plantation.

On face value this seems more likely the case that the neighbour had pound signs in his eyes which may have gotten in the way of any thought of consequence for the remaining plantation.

A very quick scour of Mynors doesn't throw up any glaring obvious case law to reference....

Personally I think in terms of DoC it would depend on several factors - such as size of trees, consequence of failure/foreseeable risk of harm or damage etc, benchmarked against the opposing AFARP in correspondence to those factors. i.e, did the neighbour act "reasonably". That magical word. lol

If we're talking 6" dia. 20' tall saplings, then it could be assumed that foreseeable consequence was low, and so the DoC owed by the neighbour would be equally low. A quick "Oh, I'm cutting my trees down next week" word of warning would likely be enough to discharge that Duty.

18" dia. 50/60' tall, then the foreseeability of consequence would be higher, and so would the corresponding Duty owed by the neighbour. Letters, notice period, reasonable consultation etc.

In the absence of any particular case law I think the obvious benchmark would be similar to that of a neighbour exercising their self-help right to prune an overhanging tree. Yes you can do it, but equally you may be liable for any damage resulting from your actions.

Has the neighbour acted reasonably? Was there any consultation? Did the neighbour put the owner on notice? Has there been a material loss? These are the kind of questions that I think would determine any liability.

I would think it likely that a time constraint could possibly be built in as a condition of consent, but with the over arching umbrella still aplying that the consent itself would still last for two years.

Which does seem a completely pointless exercise, as the consent would by default already have fallen into breach if the 3 month condition was not met.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Arbtalk mobile app

Does anyone have contact details for the Tree Officer/s in Blackpool Council at all?

Could possibly be a Phil/Phillip Morton, but keep getting bouncebacks from all the various e-mail adress possibilities.

No joy through the generic phone numbers/e-mail published on the Councils website either.

Cheers

Urban Forest Team Leader

Who we are

Trees for Cities is the only charity working on a global scale focused entirely on planting urban trees and providing volunteering opportunities to bring local people together. Originally established in 1993 as Trees for London, demand for our services has grown and we now plant trees in 25 cities across the UK and overseas.

Since our inception we have engaged over 65,000 people to plant 500,000 trees focusing on health, food security, and environmental protection and providing opportunities for education and learning through our Edible Playground and Urban Forest programmes.

Our vision to plant trees in cities is global. However, we know the importance of a local focus – we empower and work with local people to strengthen their community. We are a game-changing, ambitious organisation that sets the standard for urban tree planting worldwide.

What we want

We are looking for a driven, highly motivated and practically skilled individual to join the team. The successful candidate should be qualified in arboriculture and have experience of co-ordinating and delivering complex tree planting and tree management programmes, including working in line with existing project systems, contract documentation and Health and Safety Management processes.

• A creative and ambitious individual who is self driven and can help drive forward urban tree projects that can showcase Trees for Cities’ Urban Forest Programme

• Excellent organisational skills and the ability to co-ordinate complex logistical tasks, and use initiative to effectively solve problems as they arise

• Excellent attention to detail to assist in project delivery of a high quality end product

• Someone passionate about trees with a good knowledge of current arboriculture issues and tree management best practice.

• A strong team member with the ability to communicate effectively within the team and across the charity

What you’re responsible for

• Day to day practical delivery of urban tree planting projects, along with other urban tree and landscape projects throughout the year

• Co-ordinate the delivery and implementation of urban tree planting projects

• Maintain good relationships and clear lines of communications with project partners, making sure they are kept up to date with progress

• Keeping up to date with current arboriculture industry and health and safety best practice

• Maintain good relationships with suppliers and contractors

• Ensuring appropriate maintenance of tools and machinery

What you will get

• Competitive salary

• 29 days annual leave

• 5% contribution to pension scheme

• Four-week in-house induction and ongoing CPD and training

• Working as part of a supportive, highly motivated and driven team

• To work on our strategic street tree programme

To apply please e-mail CV to [email protected]

Some pics attached of samples taken from 2 out of a group of 3 Ash trees - all growing in a residential garden in a semi rural area of Bedfordshire.

No other trees in the area affected, so seems to be species specific.

All 3 trees are semi mature - approx 350/400 dbh, 12ish m crown spread, 13/14m overall height. All 3 trees suffering same damage, to approx 90% of crown leaf coverage.

Google'd this to death and been through my books and nothing jumps out as being such a major defoliatior of Ash.

Answers on a postcard to - "I hope it's not EAB.... "

Reports of this nature should usually be done in conjunction with an engineers report re: the fabric of the building, and/or site investigation report re: the underlying ground strata. Without those you would need to be very careful about anything you say re: the trees, without knowing g the full contextual relationship between the trees, building and site soil - and that goes for either of the two report types (mortgage/subs) that you mention.

We have a consultancy client with property near Lesmahagow, South Lanarkshire, that is seeking quotations for pruning and felling work for approx 150 mature individual trees following a recent stock condition survey.

Companies must be fully H&S compliant and be able to undertake a large volume of work.

Please pm for full details.

One for the IT savvy out there........

I'm interested to hear of how folks who survey, join the dots between GIS based and/or CAD based surveys.

We do lots of general tree stock surveys, all of which are GIS based with trees plotted straight onto the O/S Mastermap using an Arcpad front end for data capture, and then manipulated on desktop using GIS.

We also do a lot of 5837 planning surveys, but these tend to be onto .dwg topo plans or architect drawings using CAD.

I'm of the impression that the ONLY way to make CAD plans work on a GIS system is if the CAD file is geo-referenced...... is this right?

Or does anyone know of another way to link the two?

An email to the T/O to cover your bum, quoting the correspondence where he/she confirms no objection, and ansking for a confirm/deny response within 5 working days will suffice.

Ok, the is two legal perspectives to this - one being criminal damage, the other being common law trespass. The fact that you did not act with any malicious intent (mens rea) would point to this being more common law trespass.

So in terms of trespass, the question arises as to whether you had consent of the landowner to enter the land and do what you did. You didn't necessarily have consent directly from Gary, but you did have a text from Sue, stating that Gary had given consent.

So the first point of fact is about that text. Do you still have it? If so, save it! Download it/back it up to your pc, along with the rest of the conversation to show context, and do not loose it!

Your own defence then arise that you were acting as sue's agent, under instruction from her that consent had been granted. You have not assumed, you have been told and it should be reasonable to believe that she was not lying.

The second point of fact is the number of trees. Was there 3 or 7? And that is down to Gary to prove. As the claimant it is his burdon to prove the number of trees felled.

As for replanting, he can't strictly claim this as a recompense. He can only claim material loss to him that has arisen as a consequence of the trespass. Which can't be re planted trees AND compensation, just compensation.

Might be a sticking point though, as he can claim the amenity value of the trees that have been lost. What I mean to say, is that he could retrospectively value the trees using CAVAT/Helliwell, and then claim that sum as compensation - which ironically enough may equate to more than the cost of new trees.

Assuming you have that text, I would simply reply to the solicitor advising you had consent and thus don't believe that their is any claim to answer. Need only be a few lines long. Make them deal with the claim properly and prove it.

Date: 30 July 2015

Reference: LPGLTree

Contact: Landscape Planning Group

Telephone: 01206 752539

Web Landscape Planning Group Ltd. existing and planned land use, trees & arboriculture, ecology and landscape design

Landscape Planning Ltd is the largest consultancy provider of arboricultural services within the UK, specialising in the provision of consultancy services within planning, insurance, land and asset management and aviation. In 2013 and into 2014, we have continued to grow and develop our client base, and an opportunity has arisen for two qualified tree inspectors to work within our team.

These roles will be based from home and working across the UK as required. Currently we are very active in London, and the M4 and M3 corridors and so arborists based south centrally are a key focus.

The roles will offer young and qualified arboriculturists an opportunity to work within our tree management services and general consultancy. You will be working directly with Principals and Consultants as part of a multidisciplinary team. You will receive extensive training, mentoring and support, along with a salary bracket of up to £25,000 + benefits.

Specifically the successful applicants will have the following key responsibilities:

• Undertaking surveys, recommending necessary tree management and supporting our ecology teams.

• Preparing site plans, tree tables.

• Providing support to consultants and Principals on large infrastructure and other major projects.

The successful applicant will be:

• Degree, Foundation Degree or Diploma/Certificate qualified with 3 years surveying experience.

• Demonstrate previous relevant experience in arboriculture.

• Have a high standard of tree and plant ID and knowledge.

• Be a strong communicator with excellent customer service skills.

• Have good time management, and ability to act autonomously, using initiative.

• Adhere to and understand the importance of health & safety and risk assessment.

• Have a full UK driving licence, and willingness to travel.

Ideally the successful applicant will also:

• Have previous experience using digital data capture hardware such as PDAs and tablet computers.

If you would like to be considered for this position or would like further information please email your CV and covering letter to [email protected]

have you tried to have a site meeting with the TO before submitting an application ???

That would also be my approach. Along with trying to get the LA'S Conservation Officer to attend at the same time to look at the listed building aspect.

That way you can sit back and let them hammer it out amongst themselves. 👍

Ultimately one point to remember is that any decision will not necessarily be at the strict say-so of the TO, but will go to the planning committee - to which both the TO and the CO will have input; with the committee reaching a decision based on an overview of each sides input/reasoning/rationale.

Why do you think FISA is going to muscle in on th Arb sector? Genuine question btw, I haven't personally seen any evidence that they are going to.

 

With regard to the AAAC scheme for small contractors, I'm sure you're aware of the simplified version for companies with less than 5 employees. Although the legal requirements for small firms may be low, the pressure for compliance comes from clients rather than 3rd party enforcing bodies now. (Personal experience from running a contracting business)

I have not seen an HSE inspector on site anywhere in the last 5-6 years, and the last one I saw was training a local authority employee to do basic site safety checks. IE making his own job redundant.

So I could completely ignore all the HS stuff, and just do domestic work without anyone questioning anything unless there was an accident,and AAAC would be totally irrelevant. If I want to work for LAs, schools, construction cos etc then they expect the same level of compliance from me as any other contractor.

I'm not AAAC btw, but have been on the pre approval workshop and already meet most the criteria just because I need to have it in place for my clients.

I'm not sure how you could have any kind of scheme in place which doesn't require all the same stuff as AAAC, having looked at it in some detail a few years ago for a project which you were involved with but never got off the ground.

No one's saying they're going to "muscle in" on arb Peter. Vice versa in fact. And FISA have already made their standpoint clear, in as far as them confirming they have no interest in Arb matters.

The problem that I think is easily foreseeable though, is how this will ultimately create more hoops for contractors. I mean, previously, you had one set of best practice guidance - the AFAG leaflets.

Now though, you will have 2 sets of best practice guidance, both written from different perspectives. Example, with FISA taking the lead on all things Chainsaw/Felling/Cross cutting/ etc, you will inevitably have to work to the FISA compiled and published guidance when undertaking task relating to those subjects, but then equally work to the AA guidance for everything else.

And then think of how that will pan out longer term... at the moment, the course content for LANTRA/NPTC competency certs are of course all based on the AFAG guidance. Meaning that at least there is a fair joint representation that goes into the basis of the content. And that goes across the board for all certs.

Now imagine those certs being based on two different set of guidelines. All the chainsaw related certs being based on FISA guidance, all the Arb specific certs being based on the AA ICOP's. Thus you inevitably have two different "standards" (for want of a better word) of certs. Ok, there's talk of FISA consulting with the AA on matters where there is a crossover, but consultation does not subsequently equate to a certainty that Arb input will make an appearance in the final draft of the document. Especially given that they openly declare they have no interest in Arb matters.

It may just be me but I really don't see any of these things as an improvement to the Arb industry - vice versa in fact. I see it as a detriment in the longer term. I guess time will only tell.

And yes, I do know how the AAAC scheme works. And equally I remember the project that several of us tried to get off the ground previously - and I also remember that whilst we couldn't get it off the ground, the premise of what we created still went on to achieve great things.

Don't forget that AB and DLJ used it to create Tree Care Approved and the first Trustmark accreditation for Arb, and shortly after that the AA followed suit and updated the AAAC criteria and also allied with Trustmark. So whilst you comment on what the AAAC criteria is now, don't forget how it got there.

Anyhow, this thread isn't about the AAAC, it's about what the H&S leadership/direction will look like for the Arb industry as FISA progresses.

I am going to guess that its because a lot of contractors don't want more regulation and many actually resent what's already on place considering it an unnecessary hoop to jump through.

Well but this is the rub isn't it. It is panning out so far, looking at what little info is in place already, like there will be an increase in those unnecessary hoops.

Which is why I'm surprised that it's not being given more attention.

Hi Andy, "seemingly not."

 

I think much/most of the industry is just happy to 'crack on' and do what they do oblivious, in part, to what's going on in the industry at large as it doesn't really affect them....until something goes wrong perhaps.

 

I guess another take on this is a failure for groups like HSE / AFAG / FISA and probably the AA to actively engage and involve them. We are very good at engaging with our members, or at least much better than previously, but engaging the wider industry is challenging.

 

I have previously got very frustrated that the industry doesn't more actively engage with the arb approval scheme. Afterall I'm sure they'd all, well mostly, welcome a central government / HSE edict that said tree surgery business must be 'HSE accredited' etc., which is never going to happen of course, but the majority don't actively engage with an industry 'voluntary' scheme. Most because you don't need to be 'arb approved'...but the more that were would make that position more likely.

 

Ah well, keep pushing..."onwards and upwards, n chin up."

 

I hope you're well.

Paul

Hi Paul,

It's not so much a question of my opinion (re: your PM), moreso that I actually pay attention to the facts and figures, and do draw a very different conclusion from those facts and figures.

As an example, you mention your frustration that the industry doesn't engage more actively with the Approval scheme......

But why would it? What reason does the industry have in order to make it want/need to engage with the scheme?

Over 60% of the companies within the industry are small (0-4) employees, which means they have no need, inclination, requirement, perhaps even desire, to have ANY form of documented health and safety arrangements.

So on that basis alone, for some 60% of the industry the approval scheme is, in effect, not fit for purpose. For some 60% of the industry, there is no need for that 60% to pay the scheme even the slightest iota of attention, let alone fork out cash to seek registration. For some 60% of the industry, there is no legal requirement for those companies to have in place the documentation that the AA need in order to grant approved status. So how do you ever hope to engage, while that is the case?

Obviously i'm not saying that we need to seek to change the HaSaWA or the MoHSaWR, but does the AA not need to change its tack and look at ways of how it makes the Approval scheme something that can actually, and realistically, be assessed by all? Regardless of size of company and/or number of employees?

And then go a step further and think of that 60% in terms of accident reporting and accurate stats regarding accidents in the industry - with no requirement for any documented H&S arrangements, how many unreported accidents/incidents/near misses are going under the radar? A hell of a lot, I'd wager! Which in turn then throws the whole accuracy of the accident stats being passed back to AFAG/HSE/FISA into total disarray and non representative of what actually goes on.

And what makes this whole thing ironic, is that these facts and figures are taken from the very same report that the AA et al used to base the R2 project on. So why are those stats not given due credence across the entire spectrum of the industry "model"/structure, and used by the AA et al to learn from past mistakes?

I mean, this whole FISA subject is just taking us right back to the late 70's early 80's, when those in Arb tried previously to work under the umbrella of the old FSC (Forestry Safety Council). It didn't work back then, to the point that the ASC (Arboriculture Safety Council) was then formed, so why are we heading back there again, having already been there and having already proven that the model just does not work??

And what's MORE ironic, is if the facts/figures are anything to go by, the Arb industry is actually the BIGGER industry (in terms of numbers of companies/people employed within the sector) out of Arb and Forestry!

I'm still REALLY struggling to understand why there is so little interest in this subject.

Is there seriously no one else that has anything to add/comment on this subject?

Got the Mark Johnston book at the Big Barn conference yesterday - special conference rate £25.

2 chapters in and it's a bloody good read.

Hi Andy how about damage to the bungalow to thanks John

Hi John,

What about the bungalow? The OP asks about damage to the driveway. No mention in the post of damage to the bungalow.

The LA will want engineering solutions tried before they grant consent to fell. Could be worth having a look at cellweb and getting the drive relaid as a solid but thinner raft that lays on top of the roots.

Andy, as a quick overview of the consultation replies (which will now be collated and presented to FISA / AFAG at the next meeting and thereafter will formally be reported back to the industry)

 

- 70% respondents in ARB industry

- 59% AA members (so 41% NOT AA)

- Variable roles, inc. contractor / consultant / manager / climbers

- Variable freq. of accessing AFAGs / FISAs from daily (3%) to yearly (36%)

- Usage variable, and equal(ish), inc. training / compliance / RA / monitoring

- Format accessed variable from hard copy to pdf etc. (roughly 50/50)

- The 9 chainsaw guides (300 series) to be combined in 1 or 2 documents (59% and 24% respectively)

- Forestry & ARB combined guides or separate (40% and 60% respectively.)

 

Broadly those were the findings which overall confirms the value of the guidance published.

 

RE- FISA members, and in particular the FC in my experience, imposing specific contract and training / skills requirements I think the answer is undoubtedly 'YES' they will...and do already (EFAW '+F').

 

I am pushing FISA to issue a clear 'Position Statement' regarding FISA refresher training and ARB, i.e. that it is not applicable, and they agree in principle but no statement yet. However 'current' (C&Gs / NPTC or Lantra Awards) training / updates will be required, and with that I cannot disagree.

 

Hope this helps and forgive me if I've missed some bits of your email, its a hot day and I'm wilting fast.

 

Regards..

Paul

Paul,

For me it all falls down at your first point -

Re: - 70% respondents in ARB industry -

The AA consultation went out to around 7,000 people by your accounts.

The last Survey of the T&T industry run by LANTRA in 2011 reported 4,538 business with 23,766 workforce in the Arb industry. And that is only those with a Primary Arb business, not those that also have a Secondary business interst in Arb.

Therefore, the AA survey went to less than 30% of the primary industry, so 70% returned surveys would only equate to feedback from around 20% of the "Arb Industry".

The % numbers are fag packet calcs, but you certainly begin to get a clearer picture of reality.

Hi Andy, thanks for your post here.

 

There's absolutely no "cloak and dagger" at play, please, please let's not go backwards on this one.

 

Acknowledged the AA is perhaps overstretched with all the various activities and projects we are collectively involved with and, as is often the case (NOT to say its acceptable), communication suffers...and yes I / we are guilty of that in this instance, apologies (to all.)

 

When you cite such a massive change to the industry that's certainly not my take on the situation and, to be quite honest, I'm struggling a little to see where / how you arrive at this?

 

If you are suggesting that FISA will become the lead H&S Group for the ARB sector that's absolutely not the case, and indeed they have, in effect, stated as much previously. Regarding HSE / AFAG, who knows what the future holds with government cuts etc. and it may well be the AA has a more active role to play here.

 

IF this is the case I can assure you the AA will always seek the views of the wider industry (okay, not a great start perhaps) and will seek to work collaboratively with other organisations within the ARB sector.

 

I hope this to be an appropriate, and reassuring reply.

 

Best..

Paul

Hi Paul,

Ok, the cloak and dagger comment I'll concede. But I do think it pretty crystal clear that the rhetoric is greatly outweighing the detail on this subject - and that certainly does lead to an air of non transparency.

For example the results of the consultation have supposedly already been submitted to FISA - so where are they? Even with the AA's overstretched workload, I don't see it too time-consuming-a-task to upload already compiled and published data - if not per se to here, at least to the AA website.

Re the change to the industry -

Since time immemorial, the industry representation to the HSE and equally guidance on all things Health and Safety related, has always been joint. As in, the "Trees and Timber" industry as a whole. First with FASTCo, (the Forestry and Arboriculture Safety Training Council" then AFAG (the Arboriculture and Forestry Advisory Group.

This can pretty much be mirrored by the AA's own comments within the previous AFAG minutes, that are openly available for all to see, in as far "The AA confirmed that they would like to work with FISA and would not like a split to develop between arboriculture and forestry."

Ok, so what does the avoidance of this spilt actually look like at the moment -

SR reported that the AA and FISA had met to discuss the allocation and updating of the leaflets. It had been agreed that, as there was considerable overlap of interest in the 300 series of leaflets on chainsaws, it was not necessary for the arb industry to produce its own suite of leaflets. However they would be involved in the revision of the existing leaflets when this occurs.

and

4.6 Good liaison between AFAG and FISA will be necessary to ensure that work is either not delivered or duplicated. The Arb industry may need to be represented on FISA Working Groups (or vice versa) depending on the emphasis of the issue.

and

5.2 Reduce Accidents involving Chainsaws – FISA also have a group looking at chainsaw accidents and chainsaw accident statistics. This group is currently not particularly active, apart from the issue of refresher training.

5.2.1. AFAG needs to retain this project as FISA will not consider issues related to arboriculture.

The above are just snippets from the last handful of AFAG minutes, and, to be frank, it doesn't look good. There are a lot more comments from theminutes than the above, and they all mirror the same standpoint. A quick trawl of the FISA website, and there is zero mention of even the word "Arboriculture", let alone a nod to the industry or any form of joint working. Oh, other than the weblink to the AA, as the last on the list on FISA's weblinks page.

So start putting this all together and what do we appear to have -

The AA, reporting to FISA, an organisation focused purely on Forestry and the Forestry industry, for matters relating to health and safety where there is not an Arb specific bias.

I'm struggling to understand how you DON'T see this as a MASSIVE change to the industry! The implications for going from Arb reporting directly to the HSE's AIAC, to Arb now reporting to FISA, who will then predominantly do their own thing anyway, is HUGE! Especially given that FISA has zero interest in Arboriculture!

Take FISA's own standpoint on it's own training quals - those that don't have it, are asked to stop working. Hello? What happened to a free market place? What happens, again, as the AFAG minutes mention, when Arbs are asked to do work on a FISA site, without FISA quals? Are the Arbs going to be told to stop work? Is there scope and oppourtuinty for FISA to start calling the shots over chainsaw quals and dictate who must have what?

Don't get me wrong, I am in no way slating FISA what so ever. I think what they have done and how their own industry sectors have come together to create the group is very very admirable. But we do need to remember that FISA is a commercial forestry group, representing commercial forestry interests, by commercial forestry representatives, and if we think for one minute that they have Arb industry matters at heart, and will put Arb industry implications even beside their own interests, let alone ahead of, then I think a few peeps in The Malthouse are extremely disillusioned.

The free sites will provide a map at a given scale - which you can then manually put the scale bar (self drawn if need be) via paint or any other cad type software.

Trust me, it works. All my planning maps, tpo/cons area and even 5837 surveys are done this way, and never ever had one returned. Ever!