Andy Clark

This very may well have been done to death, but wanted to pick folks brains on any bridge mods. I've never really got on with floating attachment points (I wonder how many folks are gonna ask why the hell I bought a TreeMotion then), so was thinking of cinching a thimbled loop at the centrepoint of the bridge to create a fixed eye attachment point. Any one ever done this? Any thoughts? Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Got the D8 too, and yes, IMO is WELL worth the extra pennies - but only IF you're gonna use it regularly and it's gonna earn its keep. If you kit out with extras, like the tripod and the various different target plates too, then there's not many things that the set up can't do. The tripod comes in handy when measuring heights - just stand it at a convenient central location, and away you go - pinging multiple heights VERY accurately thanks to the lcd targeting screen. Using the target plates and all the pythagoras functions, you can easily plot out and measure a patio, or an area for turfing, or shrub/flower bed - or anything else that you might need to know the area for. Plus it'll link via bluetooth to a laptop or tablet pc for entering data straight into a compatible software app. . The only thing that it lacks is an in built compass for linear measurements at a distance - like crown spread or distance of crown from a building. Hope that helps. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

The other thing is not just checking, but maintenance too. Turn re-active into pro-active. Spotting that it's knackered is on thing, but making sure it stays in good nick and doesn't become knackered in the first place is worth its weight in gold - Stick a bit of graphite powder on your Krabs moving parts to keep the mechanisms working freely. For your higher tech stuff, like lockjacks or ascenders/descenders, try and get copies of the manufacturers blurb, and clean the "shiney stuff" in accordance with their recommendations. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Well, I tried. But hey ho, if you can't beat them, may as well join them..... Yes, you can "sort of" legally enforce that the duty holder inspects their trees. But it is very convoluted and drawn out, with many different facets of the laws and statutes coming in to play in many different situations - For example, no one here, that I've seen (apologies if I've missed it) asked if the neighbour is in fact the owner of the house - or are they a tenant. If the latter, then the non resident owner/landlord/managing agent can be enforced under Section 3 of the :HaSAWA to rectify the hazard. (Although this will more be the case that they will usually enforce the tenant to fulfill their obligations as the duty holder under the terms of their tenancy, rather than carry out any rectification themselves - or will carry out the rectification and re-charge to the tenant) Another, as someone mentioned previously, is that the Local Authority has powers under the Misc Prov Act to enforce that, if a hazard poses a risk to others, the duty holder must rectify that hazard - the LA also have the authority to enter the premises, rectify that hazard, and pursue the costs from the duty holder. Also they have the same powers under the Highways Act and the TaCPA. - although this does not necesarily relate to the tree posing a hazard, but can be used in relation to trees if need be. In terms of Conifers (or other evergreen), and if there is two or more in close proximity, then there's the LA's powers under Section 8 of the Anti Social Behaviour Act. Another is the standard duty of care under Ocupiers Liability - although that's more the "we can't make you inspect trees, but you have no defence to a claim if you haven't". Qualifications of person carrying out the inspection? Yeah, that one's easy. Poll vs Bartholomew established that one - which in turn equated to the now practice that the level of inspection dictates the level of qualification of the inspector. Any more? ) Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Dude, don't be so defensive. If you note, I mentioned no names, so don't assume you're the one in question. T'was a generic and gentle reminder to all, to respect the thread in question, and save the debating for a time and place more better suited. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Shame you can't remember that there's no "e" on "Clark" Mr Spencer! Lol. ) Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Gents, If I may interject here...... I think the important point to remember is "time and place" yeah? Agreed, this is an open forum, published on the web for all of us to have our say, or add our ten penneth to a subject that we feel fit and capable of comment on - and why not? That's certainly why Mr B had the good grace to start the forum in the first place. But (yep, sorry chaps, there's always one!), equally, we are all professionals - not only representing the forum, but also our industry. And as professionals, representing the forum and our industry, let's try and act that way yeah? Fan-flippin-tastic....., if we, as professionals, wanna debate the in's and out's of the various Occupiers Liability Acts, or the Misc Prov act, then let's do so! Dust off your copy of Mynors, or whatever copies of whatever acts and statutes you feel need debating, grab a glass of red/beer (whatever floats your boat) and your fags (or not), and let's get another thread going. But that's not this one was about. It was a member of the public, who had the good grace to actually join the forum and simply ask for advice. Our advice as professionals. I for one have a lot more respect for that, rather than hide behind a "guest" membership and lurk - looking for whatever snippets of out of context info they could get their hands on. If they like the look of your particular advice, then fine, that's up to them. If not, then that's up to them too! Beggers certainly can't be choosers! So stop fighting and let them choose! Now shake hands, make up, and let's all have a beer at the next show. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Boooooo, I've just got tapatalk this very afternoon so that I can finally get on the talk on my bb. Blasted thing won't let me on here via the browser, as I normally get the "sorry, we are closing this page as it is too large to load" cobblers. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

The above are all pretty much correct, but for different reasons..... The best and easiest way to look at this, is in the exact same way as if it was a car accident - the principle is exactly the same, although is applied under different acts in law. Firstly, photos. And lots of them too! Of the tree, the parts that have fallen, the damage caused.... The whole shooting match. The more the merrier. Secondly, paper trail. Keep copies of any letters or notes that you've sent to the tree owner, keep a diary of what happened and when it happened, when tree owner called you, a brief statement of what you remember as being said and by whom, and the same with the Council too. Copies of letters, transcripts of phonecalls etc. Thirdly, call your insurer. Don't waste time with solicitors. Let your insurers deal with the legal stuff - that's what you pay them for! Depending on your policy excess, they will either employ the relevant professionals for you, to both repair the damage and remove the tree part, or they will ask you to pay for a bit of it up to the value of your excess. If that's the case, then 3 quotes from reputable companies, keeping copies of each plus any correspondance, and keep gathering evidence as you go - more photo's, update the diary, copies of any letters etc..... And don't forget to come back and keep us updated as to the progress and outcome. Regards Andy Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

There's a serious typo in the model order. Oooopps! Points for anyone who can spot it.

Gents, i'm sor to say it, but this is starting to sound a bit pointless really..... I mean, surely as Arb's - consultant level or not, are we not "Amenity Tree Professionals"?? Therefore well within the remit of our relevant experince/knowledge level, to offer an "opinion" (for want of a better word) on matters that deal with said Amenity Trees? Surely you only have to look to the ethos of the process' and principles laid down in BS 5837 - ie, the tree man deals with the trees, the architect deals with the design, the engineer deals with.... blah blah blah, to realise that all relevant specialists in their field, in an ideal world, should be able to work together and pool their relevant resources? With that being the case, why is this any different?

Ha -haaa.... you'd be suprised A/C, how many people wouldn't've bothered. They'd just have waded in, saws blazing, shouting "Yeah, fell it.... It'll be alrght!". Hats off to Steve i say, for being conscientious enough so as to at least take the time to question the implications.

Not at all mate... my pleasure. I wouldn't pay too much attention to the landscapeing. Chances are it's only going to be affecting the surface/top-soil.... and in this case, it's more going to be the Sub-soil/Substrate that's the important stuff. Now obviously, i'm not aware of your personal capabilities or situation, so dn't take the following the wrong way!! - I'd imagine that the soil testing is not somethng that you're going to ba able to do yourself. Firstly, you need to remember that we're not talking about your normal "arb" type of soil analysis, ie, in relation to soil/tree suitability for planting etc...... You need to take into account that this is a matter of Sub-soil.... Much much deeper, as it'll be the stuff that the house is sat on. You're gonna be looking at getting samples at about 1m+ in terms of depth... possibly going down to as far as 3m ish!! So to start with you're going to be looking at getting bore samples (which'll need the use of a bore sampler), and then the necesary lab equipment and expertise to be able to carry out the analysis..... it might be a step too far, but you might wanna consider BS 1377. Personally, I'd leave it to the specialists - You need to remember that as the relevant proffesional and the one who writes the report/make the resultant reccomendations, if you get it wrong and their house suffers damage as a result...... it's on YOUR head!!! As for online info.... there's a few relevant pages in the AIE.... AIE. Arboricultural Information Exchange. Try the Tree Roots and Soil page, or Buildings and Trees page. (Both accesible from the "Roots" tab on the lef hand side of the homepage) You could also drop the Clay Research Group a line, and pick their brains.... Clay Research Group Cheers

Steve, You're kinda over complicating this a bit...... Peronally, i wouldn't go into the reams of Plasticity index, until such time as the soil type and structure has been identified - For example, if the soil is of a sandy/chalky type substrate, than the plasticity index and volume change potential would be neglegable..... therefore the heave/subsidance potential would also be neglegable. If however, we're talking shrinkable clay based soils, that is when the P/I will come into play and be relevant..... as also will the heave/subs potential. First things first mate... identify the soil, then deal with the resultant possibilities and make your recomendations based on the facts...... not on "what if's".

Folks, the Woodland Trust have an awesome incentive running..... Use of their online form results in an e-mail being created and sent on your behalf to your local MP due to be running in this years General Election. The body text of the e-mail asks that your local MP makes woodland creation an inclusion within their respective up and coming campaign...... more trees = Follow the link, have a look, and have your say. Support the Woodland Trust's general election manifesto "Growing the Future" and get commitment from your election candidates for increasing woods and tree cover in the UK - our life support system.

Don't be so sure of that Pete.

I don't know if "convert" is the right word........ moreso, a staunch reminder of why i got into the industry in the first place. I even spent this morning giving my Bonsai their spring treat.

Yeah D' ...... HINT HINT!!

A cracking day out indeed folks. Good to meet up with the Arbtalk contingent and put faces to a few names. I did take a fully charged camera, but spent the majority of the time stood there with an open gob, listening in awe to the pearls of wisdom being handed down by the "ole boys", so unfortunately no pics. I get the point about "stuffy". To be fair though, it was discussed in the 'd mobile on the way home........ let's not forget that some of these peeps have been discussing these same old topics for decades now, and what may be considered to be new ground to us, is well trodden teritory for them. My general over view of the day? O.k, the format of the day could've been better, but VERY educational for a first timer at an event like this nonetheless. An eye opener, with plenty of food for thought regarding tree biology and current accepted best practice pruning. Would I go again??? I can't wait till the next one!

There are no false dichotomies Tony, just factual counter arguments that you keep choosing to ignore...... on this thread, and the other. You yourself made the point regarding TO's being stretched for time/resource. That reality is indeed true. But it is further true to the point that is clearly and evidently documented, by other TOs themselves, that even with this being the case, the quality of LA tree work is below industry standard...... not necesarily in EVERY LA agreed, but most certainly in some, nonetheless. In SOME LAs, the adopted approach is simple..... "You're work's not up to scratch.... ta-ta". And that standpoint is moreoften the case BECAUSE the TO has an already stretched workload, and doesn't not have the time to get into the in's and out's of "policeing". Which is obviously fair enough. So why add to that already stretched work load? Surely that just goes to compound the time/resource problem further, rather than actually improve it? Clearly, the LA has a remit of manageing its green infrastructure, regardless of the particular role of Tree Officer, Landscape Officer, Trees and Woodland Officer, Arboricultural Officer, or however the LA define its staff...... But i think the point that Iain is trying to make, is who's best interests should determine the way in which that "green infrastructure management" be carried out?? The Trees? The LAs? The TOs? The Contractors (regardless of consideration of professional affiliation)? Or the Tax-Payers?

Most definately...... the camera is all charged up and ready to go.

Tony, i've clearly presented a proveable and substantiated counter argument. But yet you choose to ignore/not respond to the points laid before you. I'd like to ask, how you substantiate your claims?? Or are you just seeking a bun-fightby continually casting personal aspersions?

Of course, something else to consider Tony, with regard to the whole "could they do more" debate, is drawn from a comparrison to what goes on within these hallowed pages of the 'talk on a daily basis....... The AA, in particular some of it's associated members sit on AFAG....... but do the AA openly publicise "H&S type documentation" for open use?? Yes, ONE such document (last time I looked) The Tree Work Method Statement..... But yet on here on the 'talk you have a site on which COUNTLESS H&S docs change hands on a daily basis. So I in turn ask you....... Is more possible? Is standardisation possible? So given the resources and relationships at their disposal, why don't they?