daltontrees

Ahhhhh! that explains so much. I have a 181 and I adore it, never been a problem with it but it will not undercut when even slightly dull chained. I get it now! Mine starts no bother. Chain brake on, full choke and lock the trigger on. Never more than 3 pulls needed, even after a 3 month layoff. Used to damn near pull the whole saw over my shoulder trying to start it until I tried locking the trigger.

Ahh, I must ask. I have been using my own name in my signature for a while, but would happily change user name.

Why!?

I know it's just a draft, but first reaction was that it is unsatisfactory from an arb perspective in the onerous obligations it would create for the tree surveyor. I have made some preliminary comments. Without some modification, every BS5837 surveyor would have to have some degree of bat expertise. Hopefully it'll get there. It looks to have some really thorough bat information in it, which I look forward to perusing.

It says that if operations within the root protection area are proposed the arboriculturist should propose a series of mitigation measures to improve the soil environment that is used by the tree for growth. So, not quite. The mitigation measures could go beyond the RPA. The mitigation isn't called for unless there is breach of the RPA.

Your prussik knot doesn't have to be tied using a loop, you can tie it with a short length of rope tied off with fihermans' at a carabiner. The way you have tied it though, there was no need to tie off the ends on the shackle, these sends should be tied off onto the carabiner instead. The prusik is only one of dozens of friction hitches, everyone has their favourite(s), I am almost exclusively swabish hitch. Much depends on the relative diameters of the climbing line and the friction cord. If you ever plan to climb commercially, whether for tree work, survey, bat survey, foliar sampling etc. is that you will need the erlevant NPTC ticket and that it would make sense to use the knots that you will need to passs that assessement. That basically means bowline, figure of 8 on the bight, figure of 8 stopper, prussik and a double fishermans. On the course you will probably get to make up a prussik loop using a double fishermans. Then you will probably climb on a prussik using a loop. But for assessment yo may need to eb able to make up a traditional system (see the Companion page 53, but using a bowline for the carabiner attachment and a prussik for the friction hitch. Simple is best until you are confident of making personal changes that are needed for improved efficiency. Someday you may need to resort in an emergency to a simple system that requires no fancy gear and the only thing available is the end of a rope. If you can do that because you understand the principles behind it and can do it literally with your eyes shut, then I'd say experiment. Me, I like it simple. Carabiner, loop tied so tight it will never come apart, swabish. Cheap, strong, washable, disposable, easily tied, easily checked. No great clumps of knots at your waist. Especially as there are often 3 climbing lines all coming from the same point. Scots pine's system is even simpler but I'm just not a fan of eye-2-eye cords. Each to their own, you will find yours. But don't try to walk before you can erm, climb?!

At best the Order would show that intent to protect WAS there, not IS. It seems like the focus should be on what the objective is here, is it having the Order set aside, or is it being able to remove trees that may or may not be protected by it. No-one has taken me up on the imminent danger exemption, so I'm guessing it doesn't apply. So the next best thing is often the apply, get refusal, appeal, win appeal route.

Send it over if you want, strictly confiential, and I'll have a look. It's an interesting question and one that I am sure many have had to ask faced with some degree of Council shambolic tree records. At what point is it unfixable?

UKTC is chaotic, the information will be buried in a posting on an unrelated subject. I have as much chance of finding it as you have.

If it's true that it there is high risk, the TPO is academic as the tree could be worked on to eliminate the high risk under the standard TPO exemption (Regulation 14(1)©).

I see the difficulty. Someone on UKTC was investigating a similar type of issue last year or the year before, I think the conclusion was that the TPO was unchallengable despite defects. But your problem goes beyond that level of defects. The feeling I still have is that 'annexed', whether it means stapled to or part of the same pdf or under the same on-line section, might trump any defects in cross-referencing. There's also the issue of prejudice. Who has suffered as a result of the defect? HAs anyone actually been in the position of wanting to do something on land and has been prevented from doing it or is being prosecuted for doing something that a TPO would have stopped, because of the defect in the TPO? I ask it as a hypothetical court might do, because courts tend to be slow to interfere unless there has been prejudice to someone.

I don't know of any such precedent. Seems to me though that the plan is annexed to the Order and so there shouldn't be any scope for doubt as to which trees are covered by the Order. That's probably the over-riding importance. Anyone coming across an Order will automatically look for the related plan, and vice versa, and as long as there is negligible possibility of obtaining from the Council (on enquiry) an Order and a plan from a different Order then the defect in the title is immaterial. Just my knee-jerk reaction, I don't have as much info as you. I don't think the defect creates doubt about validity of the Order, only about its applicability. And if it isn't possible in a practical sense to mistake the applicability then it's probably a moot point.

Sorry to have to disagree but I think some of what you say is incorrect. Rights to light have been recognised as easements for at least 800 years. Their acquisition by passage of time (20 years) was clarified and tidied up by legislation in 1832. It doesn't have to be a workplace, it can be a house that is not used for working.

Does anyone have a view on whether saws are better stored (wet) on their side or right way up? Does petrol evaporate out through the carburretor while they are being stored? Would leaving the choke on slow this down?

It has taken me a while to remember, it was something about trees on boundaries, with more latin than a vatican mass... To be honest, I find it hard to rmember who is who on Arbtalk, because it's all just forum names that mean nothing to me. Then I realised this morning there can't be more than 1% of people on Arbtalk who use or disclose their real name. Some people on Arbtalk, (and I exclude you from this) seem to enjoy the anonimity so that they can talk absolute nonsense or be downright rude. Ideally people would be prepared to stand by their views by putting their name to their postings. But, it's just an internet forum...

Oh, come on, I answered your question hyper-literally but I didn't really answer it in spirit. The Act says "“high hedge” means so much of a barrier to light or access as ... is formed wholly or predominantly by a line of two or more evergreens" and that "“evergreen” means an evergreen tree or shrub or a semi-evergreen tree or shrub". No hedges that are mainly or wholly non evergreen then.

Yes, and damn them for it! You spotted the one weakness in the otherwise happy ending. It never ends. Up here in Hootsland, we have a ridiculous situation. The Act contains one definiton. The Act says that Councils must have regard to the guidance. The guidance contains a different definiton. There's an unresolvable conflict! I wrote to the Minister, but he doesn't get it.

Yes:biggrin:

I hope this is all good-natured, I like a debate because among other things it goves me a chance to look things up again, double and triple check them so that my understandings are reinforced. I would ahte to think that I am p***ing anyone off. Did I say 'I think'? I could now rephrase it as 'I am satisifed in my mind...' . You had said "Beech and Hornbeam hedges are exempt from the legislation, but no other deciduous are. Mixed conifer/mixed broadleaved hedges are not exempt - so enforcement could be pursued." I agree with the last bit. But I am bewildered by the first bit. I don't think it can be correct. Wholly HB and BE hedges are exempt. All wholly broadleaf hedges are exempt. The way you put it either means that all others like hawthorn are therefore actionable or means that only HB and BE are specifically mentioned but others may be actionable. I don't think (oops, I am satisfied in my mind...) that (n)either of these is the intended meaning, but I said earlier what I thought it meant i.e just because HB and BE carry leaves all year doesn't mean they are evergreen or semi-evergreen, so they're exempt. Please forgive one last bit of counter-pedantry. You refer to the letter of the law and to regulations. The guidance is not the law and it doesn't have the formal status of regulations. It's just guidance. The Act doesn't allow for Regulations to be made. Nor does it say that guidance must be followed. But I amn't being picvky for the sake of it, this all makes the point I hope that parliament makes the laws, courts interpret them and councils have to carry them out but nowhere does it say that a civil servant anywhere gets to chage those rules. Only parliament can do that. Even the courts can't they can only fill in blanks caused by bad drafting. I think we have different interpretations of what 'interpretation' means. In the end if it goes to court a judge will decide what interpretation should and woud have been reached by an ordinary reasonable person. This eliminates subjectivity. Eliminating subjectivity at the outset should prevent it getting to court in the first place. That's my personal gold standard. Sorry again for any unintended offence, but as ever on Arbtalk one has an eye to other readers and at least now they will be aware of the need to check for themselves on your grey area.

Scotland spans 55 degrees to 60 degrees. Compared to London at 51.5 degrees, the shadow from a tree at midday in mid winter in Shetland would be 2.35 times longer than the shadow of the same tree in London. So, yes. Not so bad where I am, the ratio is 1.5. (Note to self because I will lose the scrap of paper I worked this out on, ratio = (Tan 90 - 51.5 - 23.5)/(90 - 60 - 23.5)). Perhaps nature kindly redresses this by making trees more stunted the further north you go. I am not surprised that there hasn't been a high hedge appeal from Shetland yet. So far I have had a begrudging acknowledgement form the Scottish Government that the english HHLL guidance might need to be tweaked for scottish latitudes. But the bureaucrats don't seem care enough to do anything about it. Don't get me started. Again.

I think what 4.11 means is that hedges wholly or entirely of deciduous species that hold dead leaves all winter don't count as evergreen or semi-evergreen. But if a hedge that was predominantly evergreen had some beech or hornbeam in it then these could be cut too as part of the HH notice requirements. Sorry but I can't help being a pedant. So strictly speaking I think it should say "Like all other wholly or mainly deciduous hedges, hornbeam and beech hedges are not covered by the Act even though they may hold their leaves all year (but see 4.14 below)." There are no exempt species, only deciduous extents that exempt the hedge. I don't see that there is scope for subjectivity. Judgement is not subjective, it's a matter of degree, and if the Council is anything other than objective it's decision could be overturned on appeal. Does the deciduous content exceed the evergreen + semi-evergreen content? Y/N Does this, combined with the extent to which semi-evergreen content allows the passage of light, stop it being a barrier to light? Y/N.

I have acted for both sides, before applications, making applications, mediating, submitting appeals, defending appeals. May also be involved in a judicial review shortly. I am fairly au-fait with the BRE stuff now, but unfortunately it only works well for buldings so I have developed my own charts for trees and hedges. Basically if you have an OS sheet showing the buildings then BRE is fine and quick, but hedges and trees are 3 dimensional and not on OS plans so it is better to use a system that is more point-of-view based. that way all you need is a shighting compass and a clinometer. I developed a photographic technique that is even beter and quicker but because I can't reference it back to BRE and BS8206 I ccan't get Reporters (Inspectors) to buy into it. Councils and Reporters will do anything to avoid having to do the assessments properly. I wish I coud charge the fee that Councils charge and then be allowed to do the assessment as badly or lazily as they do.

There is no such law. As folk have said, there is no suggestion that ancient rights to light would apply to this situation. Even if the trees are encroaching, there is no way for the neighbour to insist that trees and branches have to be taken down by the tree owner. The High hedges legislation would only apply if the trees are evergreen/semi-evergreen. Semi-evergreen doesn't mean deciduous, it means things like privet that are evergreen but can shed leaves in particularly cold winters. Deciduous trees can only be affected by high hedge action if they are a minority part of an otherwise evergreen hedge. No species are 'exempt'. Even if HH applies to the trees, the neighbour can't insist they are taken down, He can and indeed must try and reach agreement with your client about reduction before applying to the Council for a high hedge notice. It's a pretty dodgy solicitor that would suggest that there is a law that says trees have to be taken down. If it were me I would out of curiosity ask for a written confirmation of the relevant law. In the meantime I wouldn't be sweating about it. But if you are to be involved in this, find out exactly what the lawyer said, not what the client thought he said or told you he said. Things can lose accuracy in the telling or perceiving. If you really want to know about a 'formula' for light in relation to windows, it is possible to calculate light loss from trees using a Waldram diagram to derive a change in Vertical Sky Component, then convert this to Average Daylight Factor, then relate this to the percentages set out in BS8206-2 to see if the tree has caused the light to fall below an acceptable threshold. All this is set out in BS8206-2 and BRE's 'Site Layput Plannning for Daylight and Sunlight'. The normal simple rules like the 25 degree rule of thumb cannot be applied to non-opaque barriers to light or to those that are not (effectively) of uniform height and infinitely wide. Unfortunately neither of these publications are available anywhere for free, and a formal assessment is a day's work, requiring among other things access to the inside of the affected house. Guaranteeed to bring on a headache, even when you know what you are doing. I regularly do this type of assessment for ridiculous non-standard high hedge cases in Scotland (where deciduous trees are covered by the Act), and I usually feel the need to lie down afterwards.

Fair enough, I have seen some horrible big old willows recently that are in the process of self-destruction and/or decay. The RPA issue bacame insignificant because the trees did not deserve A or B categorisation, but occasionally there was one in good condition which was B or snuck into A. But their canopies were vast (almost as big as the RPA). Maybe your pollards do not deserve retention? The RPA might be a moot point. BS5837 is from start to finish full of generalities that can be challenged tree-by-tree. AS far as RPAs go, it is one size fits all species and that is plainly wrong. But I have never seen a good explanation of what is important about root protection of that extent. Is it for support? For water? For nutrients? For the avoidance of permanent roots that wouldn't heal if wounded? It's l;ikely to eb an amalgamation of all of these. If you really want to knock yourself out finding evidence to challenge the RPAs for individual trees, then 'Tree Roots in the Built Environment' might help. Table 8.18 suggests that BS5837 is overly protective of roots. But it might do the opposite. For example table 10.1 shows that a Tulip Tree and a Monterey Pine both of 20 metres have water demands at opposite ends of the range. Do they need the same catchment area? And Table 10.4 gives 5 different examples of authoritative texts that rank trees for their damage potential due to roots, but the rankings are wildly conflicting e.g willow is ranked 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 2nd. How do we assess the relative rooting of these species if the root experts don't concur? I would be reluctant to relate RPA to crown spread. Poplars have roots that go on forever because they need lots of water, but they can be fastigiate. In the end if a LA is being difficult, it runs the risk of losing a refusal at appeal. But at the appeal somene will have to persuade an Inspector with perhaps very little tree knowledge that a deviation from a British Standard is sound. I think the onus would be on you to make the case for disapplying the BS rather than the COuncil proving that it does apply.

Yes, drill several holes. Comically inefficient. If I was you I would follow the spec and not get involved in writing it or guaranteeing its success. Ecoplugs are a waste of time in living conifers stems.