daltontrees

A couple of years ago I noticed some guys in Glasgow with a hired chipper, they had had to demolish a timber garage to get at some trees in a garden. I watched with horror as one of them fed a window frame, nails and glass and all, in to the chipper. He was chipping into a skip on a busy public road. Un-f-believable!

Since 2007 it is an offence (in Scotland anyway)... to obstruct access to a breeding site or resting place of such an animal, or otherwise to deny the animal use of the breeding site or resting place. There are exceptions under license.

That sounds ideal, well done! I hope your ability to work around potential bat roosts wins you lots more work.

So what did you do...?

Whta does "in discussion regarding some concerns about matters related to the operation of the chapter" mean? It sounds a bit dodgy.

The AA hasa code of ethics, binding on all its members. That counts for something, in my mind anyway.

I generally find that the average customer unrealistically expects the average tree contractor to know about what to do lawfully in these situations. I think it's good to take opportunities like this to rehearse appropriate and balanced arguments, but never to forget that there isn't always a simple answer. Some of these things go to court for years, lawyers get paid £000,000 and you really don't know which way it's going to fall until the Judge delivers the last line of the judgement. This aspect that Gary raised about the distinction between encroachment, nuisance and actionable nuisance is as you suggest unpredictable in the average situation. I am torn, as I always have been. It's too much to ask of the average unrewarded contractor to decide these disputes, but like Skyhuck I revel in sorting out these messes. especially when I think I know my onions, as wicklamulla says. Especially if the is a knob-jockey involved. At the risk of mixing metaphors just a little too far, if it looks like a knob-jockey, walks and talks like a knob-jockey, kick it in the saddle till it hurts.

That is a big ask to sectionally dismantle and lower wood that size. The ecologist proposal would normally be reserved for trees with 'high' (Natural England) potential even after a full inspection did not confirm bat roosts. Getting pieces off without sawing right through is I expect going to be near impossible. Certainly exceeding the 'impractical' test in the guidance. I think (without having seen the trees, I may be completely wrong) that if the trees aren't too high you might be best to straight fell, with a wide wide sink that won't break off and with crowns intact (to absorb shock). If you leave way too much holding wood so that you need to pull the trees over (with a truck or 1 Tonne winch) this culd be reasonably soft and would give the bats (if they're there at all) a better chance of survival than blocking down or banging sections down onto brash. Fell and leave, come back 2 days later and chop them up. The trees, not the bats! All of the aforegoing is a poor substitute for a crane. Natural England doesn't suggest cranes.

Usually straight and easy to split, dries quickly, no nasty tars to block up chimneys, but low calorific value so not commercially the best. But chipped it would be fine for biomass, I think poplar is the preferred short rotation coppice of choice for biomass.

Sickening stuff. Just realised I have left my 200T in the car, I am going to bring it in right away.

Natural England guidance in these situations is "Work should be conducted in a sensitive manner, and where reasonably practicable, timber with bat potential should not be directly sawn through. If such timber is removed, it should be left at the base of the tree for at least 48 hours. Where it is impractical to lower potential bat roosts, piles of brash or logs can be used to soften the impact of them hitting the ground." You are in the realm of breaking the bat protection laws here, with hefty fines, so I'd suggest that you get the ecologist to specify what measures are to be taken. I can't see how a poorly defined term like 'soft felling' is enough to instruct you.

I binned them 2 years ago, they were pretty inept, noever made the changes I asked for and if they did they got them wrong. I haven't paid them for 2 years and have cancelled my deal with them but I can't get them to remove my listing. It contains errors.

Personally I don't think the bedding plants thing is actionable. They must have been planted under a tree, and a reasonable man would not do that knowing thatthye would not thrive in the inevitable shade of a tree. But more generally, it seems right to appreciate that a TPO is an imposition, bringing with it unavoidable compromise to a man's right to do with his tree or the encroaching brnaches of his neighbour's tree whatever he wants within the gamut of common law. Does shade of bedding plants trump the societal amenity benefits of a tree that has been selected for preservation. I don't think so. So I don't think the nuisance could be abated lawfully under the exemption. Just my opinion, it's a matter of degree. I think it would be competent for guidance to state the types of things that would fall under the exemption, but the guidance would have to be careful in sidestepping definitions of 'actionable'. If that makes sense?

I'd say Populus canescens, Grey Poplar

Apologies to 10 Bears I misread your posting. What you said was correct.

Lowlife scumbags! Did they break in to your garage or car to get them?

I don't think this is a correct statement of the law. Or to put it another way, I think that this is an incorrect statement of the law. it is the tree that is TPO'd, not the area that it occupies.

I was told once that it is not ideal because ther is no way of knowing or testing its strength. I'd use them if the crotch was subsequently getting chopped off but I don't like the damage ropes do to them with the heat of friction. What does rthe latest CS41 syllabus say?

Trouble is, it does not reflect the value of the location , only the tree. So it can be used rurally and urbanly and will produce the same answer whether in city centre or village green.

My guess would be multiple breaches of HSWA, including LOLER, PUWER and WAH. Basically not using industry best practices, and ignoring wealth of industry advice against discredited practices, But the lawyer in me wants to qualify that by saying that if you used natural fork as a one-off when no alternative was available you'd be OK but if you repeatedly used it you wouldn't be. And if your rope broke because you had knackered it beforehand and had't checked it was fit for purpose, you'd be busted.

Why? No point in asking unless you either want to be told what you thought anyway or want to know the right answer. Dropping and lowering on krabs and shackles will wreck or break a rope. You won't be insured and somene might get badly hurt. Buy a pulley. MIne cost £80, I have used it probably over 8,000 times, that's a penny a go. And it's still shiny, will outlive me for sure and will never ruin a £120 lowering rope. Saving me a fortune, it is.

I agree totally, I wouldn't use rope and krab if a sling was available. Which it always is except for emergencies. Big big bites get a timber hitch and an isolating half hitch.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

Thanks, as you are someone whose opinion I have come to respect on Arbtalk, I attach weight to your comments on this suibject. And immediately on looking at your company's website I see that you are CAS accredited in PTI. Maybe there's the answer to my dilemma. If it is possible to be a CAS member and to do tree risk assessment under the PTI competence I don't need to concern myself with TRAQ. I have already satisfied myself professionally that TRAQ is a bit like trying to wire a plug while wearing gloves and sunglasses.

This is making less and less sense. CAS says that QTRA is deficient by having no minimum entry requirement. It says TRAQ is better in part by having a level 2 qualification requirement. But membership of CAS requires level 4. Anyone getting into CAS and having QTRA surely meets and exceeds the requirements of CAS and TRAQ by some considerable extent?