Andy Clark

Andy, the clear difference between the 2 elements is recognised and acknowledged, I wouldn't say it's a confusion 'between' the 2 different aspects but an attempt (certainly on my part) to understand the juxtaposition - or arrive at a point where it's obviously impossible if that makes sense?

Ermmmmm, no, not really.

If the difference between the two are already recognised and acknowledged, then surely the application of a juxtaposition is perhaps pointless? Borderline even irrelevant?

Amenity value as a standalone in arboriculture terms, especially in the uk, is well recognised as being a consideration, primarily in relation to stat controls (TPO/Cons. Area) as defined in the Act and relevant guidance papers in respect of a LA's duty to preserve trees (or indeed any such other amenity "object").

As there is almost no other stat controls for any party other than a local authourity to consider amenity value and thus preserve a tree based on that amenity value, it's application is almost irrelevant outside of the public sector realm. Even with 5837 and the requirement for trees with high amenity value to be retained, it is still the LA who adjudicates/assess the surveyors application of amenity value.

Ok, JFL has put together the TEMPO methodology for evaluating amenity value as part of the TPO process, but overall it will always be a subjective matter, and only really of an relevance in a stat control situation.

Asset value on the other hand, is the application of a monetary sum on the material "worth" of a tree in relation to a given topic. For calculating the asset value of a tree in relation to direct/indirect damge claims, we have CAVAT. For calculating the asset value of a tree in relation to it's ability for offsetting carbon we have I-TREE. Mortgage valuations tend to be the argumentative one, with the AA preferring Helliwell, and CAS preferring the CTLA methodology. (Or so I was last led to believe).

All of the above is pretty well acknowledged across the board, by the arb industry and others, and proven to work in the given context of the situation, so I'm just really struggling to see why there needs to be this debate or what there is to be achieved by having it.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Epic post!

 

I've taken the bait.

 

Should we value trees on the depreciated replacement cost as we might a hospital / car...?

 

Only if we choose to discard the notional (debatable) uplift it brings in the community, and since 1 persons 'notional benefit' could be another's 'notional nuisance' how are they reconciled?

 

Our democracy has given us local government and the tree officer is empowered and entrusted to make the decision for us. So we're trying to understand how they come to their decision...

I think that there seems to be confusion throughout this thread between "amenity value" and "asset value".

The two are very different.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Even though the FC document covers a lot of good stuff, I alos plan to go through the various methods one at a time and point pout how they are done in practice and how good or bad they are and why.

Silly question, but why?

Most of the monetary valuation methodologies have been around for years now - and have been widely used in context of their relevant application, reviewed in the said same context, proven to work in the said same context, and therefore accepted by the industry and relevant related disciplines - including the insurance industry, as per the JMP, and mortgage valuation systems.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for pushing boundaries and challenging the establishments where things clearly don't work and subsequently need to change/improve, but equally "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

And to be fair, with the greatest of respect, I personally feel that that's why people aren't showing the interest in this thread that you had hoped for.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Google returns a very mixed bag of results - but you probably know that anyway.

I get the vague impression that this could be an old publication that may have previously been available for download from the CIRIA website, but alas no more.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

As suggested recently elsewhere on Arbtalk by kevnjohnsonmbe, there seems to be interest in a debate about what amenity value really means. So this thread is open for any contributions to the debate. Or anything that anyone wants to put in here like links so that it can serve as a mini resource. The subject has barely been touched upon ever in Arbtalk yet personally I see it lurking in the background of many discussions unable to come forward and speak because it doesn't have the right words to use.

 

I will open it with a few suggestions. First of all, I don't mean wood value or valuation of forestry stock (although there are grey areas in this regard, perhaps that's why 'amenity tree' needs to be defined or we need to talk about the 'amenity' provided by trees whether they are forestry or arboricultural trees).

Secondly, opinions will differ about amenity and how it is affected by good or bad management, and unless the debate can gravitate towards objective (or minimally subjective) measures that take the observer's personal views out of the value, then it will all be a big fat waste of time.

Thirdly, and in the same vein, I am most interested in a numeric outcome (say ££s) that can be weighed up against tree work costs and property values.

Finally, starting off with the intention of keeping it simple seems highly desireable, the simpler it is the more people will use it, but I have spent a lot of time thinking about it and I know it is not simple and never can be. It's like saying accountancy is simple or tree surgery is simple. If contributors all approach the debate not to pick obvious holes in ideas but to try and fix holes by simplifying wherever possible, some consensus might emerge.

The whole subject of valuation is as long and broad as the debate that revolves around it - primarily because of the many ways in which valuation can be/is applied, and also the now several systems that are in place that can be used to apportion a value.

Ok, you've quoted the Helliwell system in your example, but of course we also have the CTLA system - favoured by the ISA; CAVAT - increasingly used to apportion a monetary value of an LA owned trees in conjunction with tree related subsidence insurance claims; and I-TREE - used to apportion a monetary value of the tree in conjunction with it usefulness at carbon offsetting etc.

Used out of context, then these systems will invariably give a multitude of different values for a given model tree, so the most important factor, IMO, is that one of context.

Right tool for the right job.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Here's a simple example of the issues.

 

A midsize tree growing in a front garden, much loved by the owner, is found to have a fungal infection that will cause it to fall over within 10 years. Without this infection, the Helliwell system values it at £10,000 but due to the infection its value is reduced to £2,500. It will cost £1,000 to remove and grind out and a young replacement will cost £500 to plant, stake, mulch and maintain for 2 years. The risk associated with failure is currrently 'tolerable' (1:20,000) because although failure is likely the chance of it hitting anyone or anything is relatively low. However, the insurers will not cover the owners if someone or something is hit.

 

Crown reduction is suggested, but although this will reduce windsail and will temporarily make the tree safer this will reduce the tree's chances of resisting the fungal infection and will cost £250.

 

What does the owner do and why?

A bit of an enigmatic question really, because you open with a hypothetical position - in so far that in it's healthy state, the tree would be "worth" £10k. But the tree isn't in a healthy state, so the hypothetical value is therefore irrelevant.

In real terms, I would say that it comes down to a judgement call for the tree owner, taking into account their own unquantifiable "love" of the tree - vs quantifiable costs.

In terms of costs alone, for example, the owner of the tree may be of limited means and lacking in ready cash, in which case the £250 for reduction may be the only available avenue - alternatively, if cash is no object, then the £1500 to fell and replant is the better option, knowing that the replacement tree has the possibility of reaching a reasonable value in years to come; in which case the £1500 would be a reasonably justifiable investment.

Other avenues that could be offset as an investment against the value, could be to explore the possibility of "curing" the tree of it's ailments - depending on the fungal infection - with stem injection and other such treatments. But routes like that are one's that would favour the "love" factor of that particular tree, as opposed to the costs factor.

It's almost a question of "how long is a piece of string" to be fair.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

How're you finding it?

Sore? Achey? Fed up with the young pups trying to teach you new tricks?

Or loving it? Like riding a bike? Showing the younguns that granny already knows how to suck eggs, thank you very much?

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

I put my view across in the othr thread, and that is that I do not view us as a professional level. Semi-skilled labour, on the whole, is a correct (IMO) position. This is not knocking the skills of an adept climber, or groundie (for they can have skills too ) but on average, most tree people are at this level. A few, definitely the minority, have moved on beyond this level, becoming skilled in the use of the Spoken Word, and Writig with a Pen even:stupido: these are still not professionals, just a little bit cleverer than the bloke still grafting on the ground, and they get to sit in the truck out of the rain. Others have far more eloquently described the meaning of a true professional, so I shan't bother.

Andy,

Just as a point of interest then, professional footballers.

Degree level education to be classified as professional? Or just bloody good at kicking a ball, to the point that they can make a living at it?

Could the same then not be said for a climber/cutter/faller/groundie etc?

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

At the end of the day its just your choice if that's the route you choose to follow, one other factor ,if your going to start producing reports and inspecting trees at a professional level you need PI insurance and most if not all insurance company's require some bench mark acknowledgment of your ability to provide such a service. The Arb Association nicely provide recognizable levels of achievement, simple to follow and understand, and you can simply progress one level at a time, either as your funds permit or as your brain permits .

Interesting that you pose the topic of academia as a benchmark of "professional"

I'm gonna tell you a story.....

In recent years I've delivered a training course to non-arbs on the subject of tree hazard awareness. The 2 day course is designed to get non arbs aware of the potential hazards that trees can pose - a bit of biology, explaining about cell growth and photosynthesis, a bit of shigo, explaining about decay patterns and CODIT, a bit of matthek and explaining about structural deformities and stresses etc...... all so that non-arbs out in the field can look at a tree and at least have a basic understanding of whether they should have any concerns and escalate the tree to me for a full inspection.

I deliver the course shoulder to shoulder with a fully fledged external consultant. Degree educated, expert witness, the full shebang - meaning that we deliver the course together. Bouncing off each other over the course of the 2 days. Both in the classroom and out in the field.

Every course starts the same way - with an introduction. I'm obviously already known in my organisation, so the intro is me introducing the consultant.

Every intro goes the same way - with me explaining, in laymans terms, "what this man doesn't know about trees, isn't worth knowing". .

And every time he replies with "Andy is far too kind. I'm scared stiff of heights and just never had the balls to do what he did and learn to climb - I only get to stand on the ground and lookl at trees, but he's got the ability to get up there and see it all up close". .

And every time, I blush, humbled by the obvious display that he has as much respect for me, as I have for him.

So is it not a question of the age old "jock vs geek" scenario? Should our own individual and personal skillset be the defining boundary of how we are perceived and represented in the industry?

Am I any less of a professional arboriculturist, simply because I chose path through the practical side of the industry as opposed to the academic side?

No, I don't think so. Granted, I can't stand up in court and give expert witness testimony of my opinion, but by the flip side, the consultant can't get to the top of a big mature Oak and look at a stress fracture up close and personal.

So should one even be judged to be better, more professional, than the other?

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

I would say a trade

 

 

 

My son is an Electronics Engineer with a 1st BEng Hons degree and is considered a Professional but the local Plumber advertises as a Professional heating Engineer, i think most Professions these days would be backed by a degree.

Ok, so add either the Bsc or Msc in Arboriculture and Urban Forestry into that mix, and would you still say that it's a trade?

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Its a "Trade", we are "Trades man".

 

Some are skilled, some not so much.

 

IMO.

Ok, care to expand?

Or are you saying that you see the whole of the industry as a trade, and everyone within it as a tradesman?

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Ok, a subject with soooooooooooo many different standpoints, views and opinions it doesn't bear trying to add them all up , and a subject that equally leads to more thread derailments than you can shake a stick at........

So let's have it out in the open, hopefully, once and for all.

Is working in the Arboriculture industry a profession?

Is an Arborist/Arboriculturist a professional?

Who wants to go first?

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

I'm sure that 99% of the tree surgeons/arborists/climbers/arboriculturists on here use the phrase "works completed to BS3998:2010 Tree Work- Recommendations on their advertising, quotes or specifications. Can anyone tell me which paragraph includes boshing the top off because that's what the client wants

Ahh, but the thread is not about "us", it's about Joe Public, and their perception/ignorance/understanding of "us", of what "we" do and of why "we" do it.

"We" all know that 99.9% of "us" work to 3998. No one's saying otherwise. The same could equally be said that "we" all know that when faced with requests to bosh the top off, 99.9% of "us" would then happily stand there for 10 minutes trying to explain to the client that "Well madam, reduction doesn't really work in allowing more light into your garden - primarily because light travels in straight lines, but also because crown reduction in most cases only goes to promote the tree to form a lower, denser crown in the longer term, which then just goes to block more light. Sooooooo, if you want more light into your garden, I would actually suggest a crown thinning exercise, combined with a subtle crown lift, achieved by removing some of the lower sub laterals, which will then let more light flow THROUGH the crown". and so on and so on........

So the point, is why, when "we" stand there, prattling on and giving "our" advice/recommendation/opinion/specifcation/quotation/approval/refusal for works, relative to whatever our individual job role may be in the industry, in accordance with 3998 or any other best practice/guidance, does Joe Public gaze back at "us" like we're talking gobbledegook?

Why has Joe Public asked us to Bosh it in the first place, and made us stand there for 10 mins and explain that boshing is not the right thing to do? Why does the water/gas/electric/cable tv engineer look at the TO like he's grown a second head, when the TO turns up and tries to explain that trenching through the rootplate of a mature specimen Oak is likely to 1) kill the tree, and 2) leave it at risk of falling over cos you'll have just cut through the things that hold it in the ground?

Why, and I'm referring to Joe Public as a whole, not just homeowners in domestic dwellings, as the same could very easily be said for businesses/business premises etc, do we generally as a nation not have a better understanding of trees and/or arb?

Less confusing?

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Oh and one other thing......

Arboriculture is most definitely not Rocket Science!

Rocket Science comes under "Physics", whereas Arboriculture comes under "Biology"

.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Well we seem to be getting a broad mix of opinions, from and equally broad mix of folk. I guess like most things, it's a subjective question really - in as much that generally the answers are going to be governed by the individuals own relative experiences in dealing with Joe Public at their own relative level.

With regards to the "Profession/Professional/Professionalism" debate, I want to nip that in the bud with this - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional - and follow it by saying that you're all wrong AND all right. But that's a different kettle of fish. Lol.

I sat reading through the replies throughout last night and this morning, and started to think about why I asked the question, what answers I was expecting to see., and what would my own answer be to my own question. (Yes, I really do need to get a life!).

For me, relative to my own experience, the answer is not so much of how Joe Public views trees and Arb, but more a case of "why" do they/don't they view trees and arb with more importance?

I'm gonna stick with the example that's been given for a moment here........

Granted, to an individual, boshing the top off to give more light into the garden may very well be important, but will the works that they're requesting to be carried out solve the problem that they have in the first place? Yeah, of course it will....... For about a year, maybe 2. 3 at tops. But then with the reactive growth that will almost inevitably follow, their initial problem is in fact only going to get worse in the longer term.

So why, after all these millions of years of being surrounded by trees on this green and pleasant island of ours, don't Joe Public "get it"?

And another consideration, in view of the litigious society that we find ourselves in these days, is that why is getting more light into the garden figuring so highly on their agenda, but yet the matter of whether the tree, in the longer term, is safe, sound, likely to fail or likely to fall is not even an utterance?

I mean tree liability payouts are well up in the £millions these days, and the case law precedents are setting a pretty clear pathway as to how the law expects trees to be managed and maintained - but yet I bet that, proportionally, more people across the country ask for boshing the top off to let more light in, than ask for a condition survey to ascertain whether the tree is even healthy.

And I bet more people ask to "make sure you do a good job of clearing up" than ask to "make sure all your cuts are made in accordance to 3998".

I must of course add that other tree work operations are also available -

- boshing the top off to cut down on leaf fall

- boshing the top off to stop squirrels getting on the roof

- boshing the top off to cut down on conkers/acorns/berries etc

- boshing the top off "cos the tree is too tall and tall trees are dangerous"

and of course my own personal favourite.....

- boshing the top off "cos the tree is overgrown"

I'm joking of course, but I think the jist of my point is pretty clear.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

In a moment of pondering today, a thought played out through my mind........ "What is Joe Public's understanding of trees and Arboriculture?"

Like most of us on here, I come into contact with the public on a daily basis - and often, as a representative of our industry, as a lover of trees, as someone who just loves the job I do, I find myself faced with a blank stare in return, whilst I stand and prattle on about things that, to me, are second nature. Stuff I take for granted.

Why is that? We are, supposedly, a green and pleasant island nation, with a very long historic importance of trees, forestry, timber etc.

Our roads are lined with them. Our towns and city are surrounded by them. We walk our dogs in woodlands full of them. As kids (some of us) played in them. Our gardens are laden with them. But yet as a populous, Joe Public, generally, seems totally oblivious to anything tree or Arb related.

.

Thoughts?

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

A lot of it would depend on at what point in the process are you being involved.

A lot of developers and LPA's will possibly have dealt with this within the planning consent stage, in as far that the LPA willl, as part of the planning conditions, stipulated any site constraints for granting planning consent - such as imposing the condition for a BS 5837 survey, Arb and/or ecological impact assessments etc.

Ask the developer for copies of these, plus a copy of the consent, and familiarise yourself with what has happened/been imposed prior to your involvement. If the developer is evasive, or if you find that any conditions have been imposed and not met, then walk away.

At the end of the day, it's your neck on the line if you fell, lop, top, uproot etc a TPO'd tree, not the developers. So as long as you're happy that you've covered yourself, don't give a monkeys if the developer isn't happy.

"The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth, is those people who are living a lie".

Walking away from a job and loosing a couple of hundred/thousand, is better than £25k fine, plus costs, plus damages for loss of amenity asset, plus the stigma against your own reputation if it all goes wrong.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

"Technically" there is no specified minimum crown height, over either road or footpath. The 5-6m and 2-3m "rule" is more just what is commonly adopted and acknowledged common sense, based on the height of a person, and the height of a high vehicle.

Overall, the Highways Act makes it a requirement to allow safe and unobstructed passage for users of the highway - which includes the threat of dead/dying/dangerous trees within striking distance of the highway, obstruction of street lamps, obstruction of views at junctions...... etc.

Mostly it will depend on how vigilant/picky the LA Highway Inspectors are.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Ahh, got the season pass so won't be paying for the Apocalypse DLC.

Sooooooo then folks, 4th and final DLC comes out tomorrow! Woooo-hooooooooo.

Did anyone ever get an arbtalk clan going?

The big wider issue in this, is that there is absolutely zero formal guidance, specifically for LA's, for the LA TO to work from - resulting in the TO trying to pick the best from the random bunch of general guidance docs that serve the wider purpose of the Arb world in general.

Folk have historically tried to campaign and lobby for the creation of an "Amenity Tree Commission", segregated from the Forestry Commission, and established to purely focus on Arboriculture as opposed to Forestry, but it always seems to get very little support from the industry and so generally tends to fall on deaf ears at the Central Gov level.

Granted, the some of the TOAssociations et al have previously issued guidance notes for LA's on the overall establishment of a "Tree Policy", but the specific contents of said policy are all still left to the individual TO to define - and usually then based on a collection of standpoints in Law, such as the avoidance and rectification of Actionable Nuisance and Health and Safety issues, with a smattering of political influence thrown in for good measure, and then jiggled to fit available budgets.

Here's my general rule of thumb "what we will/won't do" stuff, that covers not only our own works, but also the pruning requests that we get....

"We have a dedicated database for trees in communal areas, and all are surveyed regularly. We carry out maintenance work on trees in communal areas according to priority. We also carry out reactive works to:

- dangerous trees or parts of trees

- trees that are blocking footpaths or roads

- trees that are causing direct damage to property, such as branch or root encroachment damage

- trees that are causing indirect damage to property, such as tree related subsidence.

We do not usually agree to prune trees that are causing:

- loss of light/reduced light to properties (except in extreme cases)

- effects on TV or mobile phone reception

- obstruction of views

- interference with private vegetation

- obstruction of utility cables (these are the responsibility of the provider or cable owner)

- minor or seasonal issues such as -*

- honeydew (dripping sap)

- bird droppings

- squirrels gaining access to properties from trees

- leaf, fruit or flower fall.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Look at it a different way -

You say that your client has checked land registry, and that has shown there to be no owner.

The tree has already caused damage, and, given that there is no clear owner and that the LA are trying to walk away, it would be fair to assume that there is both a) no inspection regime in place, and b) no maintenance plan in place - and also that there never will be either of the above in place - hence the tree will only continue to be neglected, and therefore possibly liable to future collapse/drop events.

Ok, granted, we've only talked about the in's and outs of the legal/liability stuff, and so have no real knowledge of the tree, height, size, species, condition, maturity, SULE, amenity value etc, and are therefore flying blind here, but remember that the Common Law defence is that fantastic perspective of Reasonableness.

Given the above, and the known likely future of the tree, and again, stating clearly on the big bold note the clear intention to fell the tree if no owner comes forward, then I'd be confident that removal would be justified and could be defended. .

We used to do it all the time with subs claims - which, ok, different perspective, in so far that the tree as a whole entity was causing indirect damage, but we never looked at heavy pruning remedies (which some do argue as a reasonable remedy), we just used to fell.

So let's work a bit more on the details......

What's the tree like? Good condition, nice specimen?

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

The "land of unknown ownership" stuff is easy peasy. Nail a big bold note on the tree, and post it in several local and national newspapers also, clearly identifying the address of the land in question, and asking the owner to make themselves known within 28 days. Append to that, notification of the clear intention to fell the tree after the passing of 28 days should no owner come forward in that time.

That way, your client has a bullet proof defence, that is well established and recognised, should anyone ever come forward in the future.

As for liability for the tree in the meantime, well that's a can of worms......

Firstly, the LA. The important point that seems to have been missed (at least from how I've read the thread) is that of Duty. The LA, as the Local Authority (the clue is in the name) have a Duty under numerous statutes. Highways Act being one, as has been mentioned, in so far as their Duty to provide and maintain safe and un obstructed passage to users of the public highway - with the Authority granted powers under the Act that they "may" enter third party property in order to discharge that Duty. So the emphasis shouldn't really be on the usage of "may", but on the actions of upholding their Duty under the Act. If they choose not to exercise the granted Authority to enter third party land in order to safeguard the Highway from a known hazard , then they would categorically be in breach of their Duty under the Act. Moreso, if it was known to them that there was no known owner of the land.

But, let's not forget that that Duty only extends to the Highway. It does not extend to anything off of the Highway. For example, if a branch reached over the Highway from one side of the road to the other, and the end of the branch then snapped out and landed on a private driveway, that would be outside of their Duty under the Act.

As for Misc Prov, it's a similar standpoint, but just applied more widely - in so far that it grants the LA the powers to enter private land to attend to a known hazard to the wider populous. For example, to attend to a large dead tree in private land, located within striking distance of a public play area.

Similar in some respects, is also the LA's powers under the Planning Act, and the Environmental Protection Act - again, in so far that they all grant the LA the Authority to enter 3rd party land in order to abate and rectify certain nuisances - as defined within the relevant Act.

The issue is though, is that most LA's will hedge their bets when it comes to land of unknown ownership. Primarily, because all of the relevant Acts also grant the LA the ability to recoup the costs from the land owner. But if no land owner, then no means of recouping the costs. And so it becomes a gamble, based on the likelihood of anyone ever taking a successful action against the LA for not rectifying the problem, versus the time/effort/expenditure of solving the problem with no means of recourse.

There could be a route for action though in Common Law under a Negligence claim, especially given that the LA have been cutting the grass, assumingly under the tree in question also - so therefore in theory could be reasonably expected to be aware of the location and any defects/hazards arising from the land that they are maintaining.

Possibly also under Occupiers Liability, in so far that by conducting the relevant maintenance of the land, there are by default assuming the role of the Occupier. Given that Occupiers Liability places the Duty on the Occupier, and not the land owner, then it's possible.

As for any claim of ownership by the LA, Adverse Possession (squatters rights) is not an enforceable action - ie, you can't make someone claim the land if they've been utilising sole enjoyment. It only works one way unfortunately.

If your client's not looking to claim for the damage though, I would just advise to go for the big bold note, and then crack on and fell it.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Blimey, how things've changed!

It used to be the case that they'd take them down and replace for free, but would charge if you ever damaged them.

I think the principle was that it wasn't the phone users fault or the tree owners fault that BT decided to route their cables through or under a tree, so therefore not liable for any costs if they needed to be taken down to work on the tree.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Anyone having any issues with that good ole' summer branch drop?

In the last 2 days I've had two big mature Pop's shed fair sized limbs, and a reasonable sized Prunus kanzan decide that it would rather have a lay down across the footpath than stand upright any longer. (Although to be fair that was mostly as a result of rot at the root collar, than SBD)

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk