daltontrees

You asked. I'm not out to persuade anyone. I'm pretty sure you're wrong, though. Supervision has to include being satisfied tha the supervisee (don't know if that's an actual word) knows what they're doing before you let them start, and stopping them doing things wrong before there is an accident or before bad habits set in, and explaining how to do it right and why. Sounds like training to me. Certainly not enough for the supervisor merely to be competent himself. That's not my opinion, that's my interpretation of the Regulation and of the midset of HSE inspectors.

I don't think it's deliberately ambiguous. It's more that it is impossible to be precise with only words. And a lot of tests arise from the common law concept of reasonability, probably the most important word in law. It is also desirable that rules are not overly prescriptive so they leave scope for adjustment to context and curcumstances. 'Practicable' is another important word, it denotes that it's no excuse to do a thing if it's cheap and easy and yields good results, and no obligation if its hard, expensive and with questionable returns. There is a societal iterest in allowing life and the economy to get on with things withut fear of being liable for every trivial and fantastically unimaginable harm situation. In H&S law and practice, risks can be categorised as acceptable, tolerable or unacceptable. There's no need to address the first, no excuse for not addressing the last, and a requirement to reduce 'tolerable' to 'as low as reasonably practicable', with I think an onus of proof that what has been done or not done to manage risk was appropriate in the curculmstances. So in the current example, say a groundkeeper has a permanently disfiguring cjainsaw accident, meaning being unable to work again. Let's say if the employer was found liable the compensation would be £250,000. Let's say that it probably wouldn't have happened if the guy had recieved proper training from an external organisation and had passed assessment. And that the cost of training and the exam would have been £1,000. So there's a multiplier of 250 times cost of risk to cost of prevention. That I think is a reasonable and proportionate cost for the employer. I wpoiuldn't want to eb an employer trying to argue that the cost of training was disproprtionately high relative to risk.

I just made it up. No, of course I didn't. PUWER Regulation 9.(2) Every employer shall ensure that any of his employees who supervises or manages the use of work equipment has received adequate training for purposes of health and safety, including training in the methods which may be adopted when using the work equipment, any risks which such use may entail and precautions to be taken. This suggests that the supervisor must not only be a competent user themselves but must be trained to train. It's not quite the same as being certificated, which at best would rely on the trainer remembering all that he was taught.

Consultancy is quite rewarding but you'd probably have to do a stint as a tree surveyor. HUGE difference between being the person who potters about collecting tree data and the one that turns up in court or Inquiries or standing firm while getting the hardrier treatment from the MD of a development company. But if you go for surveying, you might as well think long term to doing proper consultancy. It would be brain death on its own. I chucked a good salaried job to get into arb, thought I would work 4 days a week taking my time so that i would really only have to get through 3 days work in that time. No mortgage! A few years ago the sore bits all joined up in to one big sore body. Coming home for a quick dinner then off out to quote jobs, then going to the tip at 7am before meeting the guys on a site. It never ended. Sounds like you are not motivated to go it on your own as a contractor. It's exhausting getting started, and it never really stops. I gave up contracting when it got too much, I already had a LOT of survey work so the transition was easy. 10 years on I am well qualified and chartered and enjoying it except that I am doing 9 days a week so it's becoming tiring. A transition rather than a leap is a good idea. Maybe go 4 days a week and do some structured study the other day. Make a plan with dates and targets. Write it down to force yourself to make choices. The plan will never quite work out, but it is a start and you can review it as often as you feel you need to. I did this and it was priceless. It didn't go as planned, but I got there anyway. You cna PM me abut qualifications but be patient I am poor at seeing notifications.

The Asbestos Regulations and PUWER and MHSWR are all made under the Heath and Safety at Work Act 1974.

That sums it up, the training is compulsory, the certification is advisory. Lack of the latter, though, would put presumption of guilt on the employer, he would have to prove otherwise. Realistically, if someone does the course for another few quid they can do the assessment and get certificated. I'd be seriously worried about taking on an employtee who has done the training and hadn't done (or even worse, hadn't passed) the assessment. Certification and training will pay for itself within a week, maybe two. Might even result in higher wages.

But chainsaws need proof of competence. Not all other work types do.

The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. Reg 9 "Every employer shall ensure that all persons who use work equipment have received adequate training for purposes of health and safety, including training in the methods which may be adopted when using the work equipment, any risks which such use may entail and precautions to be taken. " Deemed compliance comes from the Approved Code of Practice that is slightly more specific and says that certification is required to evidence adequate training. "All workers who use a chainsaw should be competent to do so. Before using a chainsaw to carry out work on or in a tree, a worker should have received appropriate training and obtained a relevant certificate of competence or national competence award, unless they are undergoing such training and are adequately supervised. However, in the agricultural sector, this requirement only applies to first-time users of a chainsaw." So if one of the staff got hurt or worse using chainsaw, there'd be no defence by the employer. Does a golf course count as agriculture? No. Adequate supervision is defined, the supervisor needs to have been trained in training.

The AA document is merely paraphrasing Mynors in 'The law of trees, forests and hedgerows'. It's far from being as simple as either (a) cut back to the boundary with impunity or (b) don't cut back it if it will damage the encroaching tree. Case law says the first, popular opinion (if unsubstantiated and misconcieved) says the latter. Both are trotted out regularly, usually by people takign sides in a dispute.

Cyanide, not arsenic.

Damage may be related to a. subsidence due to inadequate foundations b. differential subsidence due to general drought conditions or c. subsidence due to dessication and shrinkage of clays due to tree water uptake. Or all three. The thing that jumps out of the report is that the foundation and BH2 is only 1 metre deep, but 2.1m deep at BH1. This differential alone may be enough to contribute to or be the cause of differential settlement. The shallowness of the BH1 foundation is the absulute minimum NHBC for the situation. But some calculations might show that the foundation is adequate for the distance and species of the trees. Another notable popint is that the borehole logs show the clays to be 'very sandy, very silty', which generally means low shrinkability. Whereas the inadequacy of foundations is not a complete defense to claims for subsidence damage, it may be a contributory defense. Essentially if the house had been built with inadequate foundations it could be for the building designer to prove that they made adequate provision for subsidence risk. Depends on the age of the house too. Based on the report provided, the case has not really been proven. there might also be a follow-up claim for foundation repair costs. There's always a risk that the tree owner is being taken for a mug to pay for stuff that is not their liability. Without independent advice and representaiton the tree owner might never know if this is happening. I hope the tree owner has building insurance. If so, pass the whole thing to the insurers asap. A substantial reduction wold only be effective if the trees are responsible and if it was repeated regularly. forever. Good useful and valuable advice costs money. Sounds like it is worth resisting tree removal initially, particularly as this wold look like admission of liability in a subsequent claim for foundation repair costs. Don't get formally involved is my general advice. And be careful what you share in public.

And it's free from most shops trying to get rid of it. IKEA flatpack boxes are the best though.

Cerioporus would be on a 'stalk', however short. This one appears to be hugging the tree as a bracket.

There's a difference between applying to remove a tree because you don't want it and applying to carry out development that will result in loss of (or risk of loss of) the tree. The former has low chance of succeeding but it depends on the Tree Officer, unfortunately many of them don't care about your living conditions and will stop you doing what you want with your own tree. The latter has some chance but you might be asked to build the dining room on a ring beam and piles so that the roots under it can be retained and irrigated. It can be done. You can only ask or apply. There is a right of appeal too, which if you live long enough might get you a different and more compassionate decision. Subsidence and heave are only really issues if you are in an area of shrinkable clays. They are not widespread in Sussex but there are some. Piling would probably eliminate the risk. The TPO reguations are clear that permitted development rights do not overturn TPO protection.

I see what you are saying but I don't think that's the right interpretation. The first part is removal/ uprooting/destruction while no exemption exists. The second is where an exemption exists. "is uprooted" still connotes a deliberate act rather than 'becomes uprooted', and the identical string of words shoidl probably be interptreted as in pari materia i.e. intended to serve the same purpose. But it's open to interpretation, unfortunately. That said, once a tree has blown over and is perhaps still alive, and is now a legal nuisance by blocking an access, the nuisance exception is still available to remove it. Such fun!

What part of UK (laws and policies vary)?

It appears by its language to apply to trees uprooted or destroyed by the actions of someone (i.e. prohibited acts), but not to natural uprooting or destruction.

I am interested purely on a theoretical basis. I don't really see nuisance beeing that bad a can of worms. If someone has a legal right of access and a tree blocks it, the tree is depriving them of enjoying that right, so it's nuisance. No appplication required for works to tehe xtent that are needed to abate the nuisance. Not an excuse to remove the whole tree of course.

But if it blows over and is not dead, then s.206 surely doesn't apply to it? And if it is blocking a legal access or is now occupying someone else's garden it is a legal nuisance and can be removed under exception?

done

Yes my comment had a target painted on it. But let's stick to her reluctance to incur higher insurance premia...

Let insurers deal with it and involve them as soon as possible. Keep notes and dates of all discussions and events and dated photographs. Also I suggest notifying your purchasing solicitor, as the previous owners may have had knowledge of the issues and may have been under an obligation to disclose them. If nothing else they should check your purchase survey report. The Council's position is generally right but you don't know the history. In any event, a tree report would be better commissioned by your insurers. Your girlfriend's concerns are irrational. Not claiming on insurance makes no sense. Not disclosing stuff to insurers could invalidate your insurance. Is it going to get better all by itself? Is it going to go a way? No? Start doing something about it.

Plastic frames are hopeless, they last about a month until they are sat on or get dropped. It's metal frames or nothing for me. Plastic lenses don't last and they are easily scuffed but it's worth it not to have glass shatter into your eye. I get through about 4 pairs a year.

They're not going to get better. Are thye providing current benefits that mean it's worth keeping them for as long as possible, including with a height reduction? If not, worth considering programming them in for removal and replanting? Please bear in mind that P.s. often follows infection by Armillaria, especially on former broadleaf sites, so maybe think about Armillaria resistant species (of which there are very few). If tehre are wothwhile benefits, it all comes down to detailed assessments tree-by-tree. Lonsdale says to treat infected wood as if it is a void. Als consider where the fruiting is, it can have bearing on which points might fail first.

Nah! Nah, nah, nah.