Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About daltontrees

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    56degN 4degW
  1. tirfor maintenance

    In response to a request from Mackie and for the benefit of anyone that has to take a Tirfor apart and is having bother lining up the short bar that links the two rams (if you ever have to do it you will immediately appreciate this problem). See attached picture, take about 0.5m+ of very strong cord but narrowest diameter you can manage (3mm paracord ideal). Thread it through the hole in the casing at the back of the winch (see photo). Pass it around the metal bar that links the rams, and go back through the hole again. Now, with everything to hand and all the bits in place, pull the cord back until the bar is in line with the slot of the bottom casing. Pull up on the cord to lock it off, then put the top casing on and locate the bar in the slot on the top casing. Get a bolt or two on sharpish, but don't completely do up any bolt near the cord. You can then release the lock on the cord, the bar should be held now by the casings, and you can pull the loose cord through and out of the housing. Then finish tightening and putting back the remaining bolts. Hope that helps. It's even easier with two people as one can pull and hold the cord while the other assembles the casing.
  2. Hi Dalton, i noticed on one of your posts you've taken a Tirfor T13 wrench apart and cleaned, I've taken the back cover case off mine to investigate why the cable wouldn't release and now run into another problem, there is a plate inside that locates into a lug on each side of the cover case but when i push the plate into one of the lugs the force of the spring makes the other side out of line to line up to fit the case back on, did you have this problem, if so was wondering how you got round it



    1. daltontrees


      I did have this very problem and I remember there was a bit of ingenuity required ot get over it. I'll look out the photos I took and see if it reminds me how I did it.

    2. daltontrees


      I have explained this on the forum now, see the thread you were posting on a few days ago.

    3. Mackie


      Thank you

  3. So what is an Arborist?

    "Arboriculturist" is a word that just about o-one has heard of, although it is formally used in BS5837 and a lot pf people who are doing 5837 surveys do not fall within the defined term (but fair play to them as no-one on the receiving end seems to give a damn). "Arboricultural consultant" is more useful because at least it emphasises that it's about consultancy rather than contracting, and escapes the linguistic trap that Tom has fallen into. My dictionary says a tree surgeon is "someone who prunes and treats old or damaged trees in order to preserve them". B ut since there is no legal restriction on getting a chainsaw from B&Q and calling yourself a tree surgeon to sound all fancy, the tree butchers of suburbia were always going to latch onto that term.
  4. Level of detail: Foundation within an RPA

    Yes that would do away with the water butt, but would only work I think if carefully set up so tha the flow holes are all at the same level, requiring brackets on (in your case) the inside face of the wall. It's main attraction might be as a means of getting rid of water off a roof to avoid putting it into surfacfe drains, raher than as an irrigation system, as it might over-irrigate anyway. I think the system I spotted is a bit better beacause it's easy to fit and just requires a flexible hose connection to it. But it requires water pressure (tap or water butt). If butt is not an option, I can still see how it can be done but can't see a product that does it (it would involve using a length of downpipe as the waterbutt). You'd think that there would be a product for this by now...
  5. Which edible fungi

    Saw this puffball for sale in a market in Belfast yesterday. Monster!
  6. Level of detail: Foundation within an RPA

    I don't imagine it needs to be much more complicated than this... https://www.guttermate.co.uk/irrigation/porous-pipe-ring-irrigation-kit-977.html Well, connection from gutter to water butt, and then to this network of porous pipes. This seems nice and simple because it need only be staked onto the solum, and because it sprinkles rather than puts water directly into the ground the roots will not choke the pipes. Looks like coverage of about 7m x 7m. It would be common sense to match the collection area (roof) to distribution area. That said, I've never tried something like this before. Do you think it would work?
  7. Level of detail: Foundation within an RPA

    Here's the first part of that Swedish presentation. I can send the rest to anyone that wants it, but it's A BIG file. 3 separate mentions of the need to remove poisonous CO2. wed_05_Bjorn_Embren-The_Stockholm_Solution pt1.pdf
  8. Level of detail: Foundation within an RPA

    PIling to avoid tree roots is about the least likely reason for piling. It's generally an expensive solution compared to strip or raft foundations. So I would expect a lot of standard piling details to include oversite concrete because roots are not a consideration. The detail you have found seems to have airbrick-type vents just below floor level. Normally subfloor ventilation is to remove humidity, but the way that detail is drawn would not promote air movement across the solum and might not on its own be adequate to remove CO2. If you're going to go to the over-the-top expense of piling to protect roots, it would be a good idea to make sure the roots are not then asphyxiated, otherewise it's been a waste of time and money. And roots.
  9. Level of detail: Foundation within an RPA

    I recall being at the AA conference a few years ago in Exeter and listening to a really interesting presentation from arborists representing a municipality in Sweded. Names escape me right now, but the whole thing made perfect sense to me. The presentation was about civil engineering structures in streets that were designed to provide good rooting environment for street trees. For anyone who has been at a club or concert where carbon dioxide is used to create a ground layer of fog, it's obvious as any chemist knows that CO2 is denser than air, and hugs the ground. What the presentation said was that the structures weree being designed to copy what hapens in nature, allowing for rises and then drops in ground water levels to push CO2 to the surface where it could be vented away, and then draw oxygen down. Cutting a long story short, and taking it that it is good to have CO2 pushed to the surface in this way and removed by air movements, it seems imperative that voids beneath buildings that are being used as part of the rooting environment must be vented, and effectively so, or else roots will be partly or wholly asphyxiated. The occasional existence of root in unventilated voids doesn't mean that these environments are productive rooting environments, the roots may be getting by, but cannot possibly be as productive as rooting out in the open. An unvented void will just push CO2 up to or near the surface, then pull it back down when ground water levels drop again. Bear in mind CO2 is an unwanted by-product of root respiration and, unlike with in leaves where some CO2 can be re-used in photosynthesis, a build-up will result in poisoning (asphyxiation) of roots. I'll get on to nutrient replacement after I've had my dinner.
  10. Question for the Forestry Boffins!

    Edward, you seem to be saying that the answer to my questions are that you would set out options that you can't articulate to the client because you don't know the answer to the questions. But you can leave it at that, I just wish the industry would push it a bit to gain the same level of respect as clients do from other professions. But maybe I am alone in this feeling of hating not to be able to advise a client properly, and so personally I will continue to stick my neck out a bit and advise more fully than most.
  11. Level of detail: Foundation within an RPA

    First posting on the new website, it's mre confusing than the old one , but maybe that's just me? I don't think anyone's really got to the bottom of this question yet, Gary. What a Council is allowed to request to support an application is determined in a couple of ways. There are national requirements for mandatory information, but these don't affect cases like yours. There are then local requirements, and if something is requested it needs to meet 3 tests - it needs to be on a recently published local list from the Council. The local list is prepared by the local planning authority to clarify what information is usually required for applications of a particular type, scale or location. - it must be reasonable having regard, in particular, to the nature and scale of the proposed development; and - it must be about a matter which it is reasonable to think will be a material consideration in the determination of the application. So referring to the first one, I expect most Councils will have published some all-encompassing list of things it can ask for, but you may want to check for the area relevant to your case. The second one is what we're discussing, and perhaps for a single house extension a very detailed engineering drawing is overkill if this can be dealt with later The third one is the most useful test, and I imagine the LPA's thinking should be something like this.... Is the tree one that merits protection (i.e. is the rationale for TPOing it originally still valid)? Does the proposal encroach on the root protection area per 5837? Are there likely to be roots and a rooting environment under the encroacked part of the rpa, taking account of the current and previous use of theat land, on which the ongoing vitality of the tree depends? Are there other areas outwith a standard circular rpa which due to the natural distribution of roots are more or equally likely to contain roots and adequate rooting environment? Would the severing of roots at the edge of the encroachment, if properly done in accordance with 5837, likely cause infection that could result in the loss of the public amenity that the tree provides? And only if the answers to these questions all say that the rooting is an indispensable part of the rpa, can the rpa be protected by an appropriate foundation design? Would it suffice to grant consent subject to a condition that allows the LPA to see and approve adequate detailed design before development goes ahead? If not, it would probably be reasonable to require a drawing showing in principle how a foundation design would work, and to still condition consent with some stiplulation about deciding pile positions once the positions of roots are known. But based on what you have said, if this drawing is required now to show how roots under an existing concrete raft, then I am inclined to think that this is unreasonable on 2 counts. Firstly the distribution of rooting volume required for the ongoing vitality of the tree is in reality unikely to rely on near sterile soil beneath impervious concrete. Secondly, the drawings will not achieve much more than would be achieved by stating the principles of appropriate foundation design and having these put into a firmly worded planning condition. All that said, if the foundation drawing is going to be needed in the fullness of time and could be obtained at this stage at the same cost as after consent, then it could be provided now if the client is comfortable that she will get consent on the principles of the proposal, such that the up-front fees aren't potentially wasted. But i suspect it won't remove the need for conditions relating to roots. As for a level playing field, I am sure the LPA will manage to find some way to show why it wants drawings for this case and didn't for an ostensibly similar case nearby. So, it's all about material consideration. But to save roots under an existing slab and create a void that will scarcely get water, will have unnatural gas exchange, will receive no replenishment of nutrients from decaying surface vegetation? I don't think that that is material to the ongong vitality of the tree if it is probable that other areas adjacent to the tree are, and will continue to be , providing better rooting. The usual debate, in other words, about whether circular rpas are sacrosanct. They arent to trees, and they aren't to any right-minded arboriculturist, and if a circle is needed only to humour the unimaginative and unrealistic box-ticking of a LPA, then it's not a material consideration, a refusal to provide a drawing may result in a refusal and an appeal would probably succeed. But appeals take time, and don't LPAs know how far they can push that?
  12. Question for the Forestry Boffins!

    All noted. Nothing is ever completely clear, But I would invite anyone to subject themselves to this little test. Say in Kevins scenario, there are two parties A and B owning each half of a plantation. You are the consultant appointed by A to advise on harvesting. You know that harvesting will probably result in windthrow of some of B's trees. B is asked if he wants to harvest simultaneously, but he definitively does not in the foreseeable future. Question 1 - Do you advise A that (a) he must forget about harvesting and should only do it when B wants to too (b) he should harvest but must expect to compensate B for any windthrown trees and/or be up in court on a civil action of negligence © he should harvest, and give B plenty of warning that it might result in some windthrow? Question 2 - regardless of which of these options you choose to advise A, A questions the advice an asks how you arrived at it. Do you say (a) I don't know, only the courts will tell if I am right (b) I don't know, take legal advice or © this is a commonplace enough scenario for me to be confident in my advice to you? I'm a (c,c) man, and my clients so far like my decisive and firm advice. It may, of course, be wrong. On a less day-to-day basis, I was musing today that windthrow of a neighbour's trees is the action of the wind, not of the landowner who decides to fell. Now, if A stored up all the wind on his land and released it all at once to flatten B's trees, that would be wrong. But he is only allowing the wind to pass from another's airspace, through his airspace, and onto B's airspace. This is not a Rylands v Fletcher type of failure to contain something on land or the carelessness of Goldman v Hargreaves. Nor is it a legal instead of literal neighbour relationship of Donoghue v Stevenson. I cannot see that society's need for workable jurisprudence would be served by preventing a man from using his land for the very purpose it is devoted to, viz forestry. This to me is even clearer cut (no pun intended) than the root pruning scenario. We all have as you say rights and responsibilities, but B has not acquired the right to force A to contain the wind. One canute do that, and I believe the law knows it. The 'green strips' course of action would have to have been taken when the trees were very young, as it is the very objective of forestry to grow tall branch-free trees in the full knowledge that they wouldn't grow like that in nature and survive.
  13. Question for the Forestry Boffins!

    We all went over this recently in a thread, and what the outcome wst as I recall was that you believed this, but neither you nor anyone else who was sympathetic your view had any response to the impossible logical and legal cosequences of it. Or put it another way, if push came to shove I still say the law cannot support your believed position. The scenario was about root pruning, but this current scenario has the same underlying principle namely - the remaining tree owner has not acquired over time by statute, common law or prescription a legally enforceable right of companion shelter from the owner of the now felled trees. And like our root pruning scenario, the preposterous consequences of any such acquired right would be to prevent one owner felling his trees because he felt he had to shelter his neighbour's trees. As Peasgood says, if there was a right of shelter maybe the tree owner owes something for all those years of shelter. But of course he doesn't, it's a legally preposterous construct. Gary Prentice's roof blowing off scenario illustrates this. And so flatyre and everyone else can rest easy every time a tree is removed or pruned (or a building demolished or a fence removed), and then a branch snaps or a tile comes off a roof on adjacent land. The world would grind to a standstill if there was express or implied prescriptive rights of shelter. I believe the guy who has felled his trees had every right to do so, even if he knew the consequences would be increased chance of windthrow of the neighbouring trees. And unlike the root pruning scenario, he possibly didn't even have a duty to warn. One doesn't have to pick up Mynors, it is common sense and common law, the two are one here. There may be forestry legislation exceptions, but they would be exceptions rather than reinforcement of common law. I know of no such exceptions. In these scenarios, Spruce Pirate's 'green strips' are the answer, and ideally separate harvesting dates could have been anticipated and a gap left on the boundary to develop windfirm edges. I am sorry to be so blunt, but I feel duty-bound to offer this alternative to your belief. But just to be clear, even though I have been on Arbtalk for 5 years it doesn't mean that I now owe a prescriptive duty of care to other Arbtalkers.
  14. Ireland consultancy question

    It's on a neighbour's, but his actions may have made it less stable. He is worried it might fall on his own house.


Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

Get in touch

facebook feed

Recent tweets