daltontrees

According to Wikipedia "Pinning refers to the clogging of the file teeth with pins, which are material shavings. These pins cause the file to lose its cutting ability and can scratch the workpiece. A file card, which is a brush with metal bristles, is used to clean the file... Chalk can help prevent pinning.[Lye 1993]" Lye says simply "Chalk rubbed int the file helps to prevent pinning". I used to use a brass pinning brush. These are really cheap and will extend the life of your file almost indefinitely, as the file material is very hard compared to chains and does not wear down. It's the pinning that stops the files working. You just need to get a method of removing the pinning (brushing) or preventing it sticking (chalk) or both. In the workshop this is practical, not so in the forest. I hope this helps a little.

Ailanthis altissima, at a guess.

Appealing against a refusal is easier than againsrt a deemed refusal. The reason is if the Council refuses it has to giver reasons wht and for your appeal to succeed you only have to address those issues. If you don't get a refusal you have to speculate about why it wasn't approved, and cover all the bases. Really really tiresome, although your planning consultant seems to have covered most of the policy issues. What yo need tro do meantime is make sure that the Council has been given all the information it could have needed to make a balanced decision. I see two separate issues. The future threat to the tree as a principle and the threat to the tree as a matter of degree. Further confused by the way that the matter degree will increase and prove the principle some day.

I hve just read the Arb report. It's pretty partisan. I wasn't persuaded by it. I agree with Edward C's observations about RPA under the road, but that's not the contentious point here, and I would let that sleeping dog lie. And for all that the computer graphics are fun to look at, they don't quantify the daylighting issue. Despite appropriate reference to BS8206, the report then went on to ignore it. In so doing, it failed to persuade me. I have no agenda to pursue on this and I can see that the Council has been left with dry ammo to defend a refusal. It seems a bit mean to refuse based on this one point but as long as the Council has operated within approved policy or has not been given satisfactory evidence of daylighting it's a local discretion that a reporter shouldn't interfere in. Get a BS8206 assessment done and you should at least be able to eliminate that aspect form the dispute.

I've just seen the plans. First impression is that the daylighting for the design on the south elevations with the tree as it is. If it gets much bigger it could be challenging but it should be possible. The problem is the dining area. If that's to be a habitable room at 1 1/2% daylight factor it's marginal.

At solar noon in midsummer at a latitude of 52 degrees the shadow at noon from a 19m tree will extend north from it for 10.3m. In midwinter it will be 73.5m.

I would give it one last shot before appealing against deemed refusal. You would have to admit that the tree will get bigger and get a credible estimate of how much bigger. Then you would need to assess the layout using BS8206:2 and 'BRE: Site layout Planning for Daylight'. If you can demonstrate that the development fits the criteria of the BS, I am sure you would win an appeal or even better win over the LA. You might win an appeal anyway without doing a shading assessment. I find them fairly easy, but it's one of my specialisms and they can get a bit messy if you're not doing them often.

Yeah I'd say Acer saccharinum

These havve been around for a while but are so nice I thought some of you might want to see them. My favourite is the hollow tree stump.

I didn't see it before the changes but here's my thoughts now. You mustn't have taken Ty's comment about the difference between Home and About seriously,this is the frst two pages people look at and it's confusing. It wasn't till page 3 that I realised that there was more on 1 and 2 if I scrolled down. Put an arrow at the bottom of the opening views. Decide if you are called SBTS and Wood Fuel (on your contacts page) or SBTS and Grounds Maintenance (on your header) or SBTS and ground works (which is what your gallery page looks like). No mention of qualifications, memberships of regulatory bodies or insurance? If I was a punter looking for a shortlist of contractors to call, I might not even call you.

A slip of the decimal point, I hope. Amazon.co.uk: Buying Choices: Tree Roots and Buildings

I agree, with a few subjective variations. OP needs to appreciate that guidance is guidance but the primary legislation says 'in the interests of the amenity of the area', and that's the law. None of these words are defined in the Act, and it certainly doesn't say anything about public areas. Which all raises some vaguely philosophical point about whether government shold use powers to control the use of one man's land for the benefit of private individuals. That would generally be an abuse of the convention on human rights, uness there is societal interest. It's a fine line. It's not really like goalposts. More like shot putting, as long as you don't step over the line and as long as you get within the splay, the best shot wins.

I appreciate that, it's just that the original posting was about an appeal. In an appeal the rights or wrongs of the original TPO are not open to inspection.

An extreme appeal! Against the making of a TPO, not the refusal of an application. therefore cold only be dealt with by the court and not an Inspector. Also I noted at para 42. In Stirk v Bridgnorth (1997) 73 P&CR 439 at 444 Thorpe LJ said “where a council is both proposer and judge, the obligation to deal thoroughly, conscientiously, and fairly with any objection is enhanced”.

Rules? Ha, that's the wrong way to look at the game. Rule 1 - rules are for the guidance of wise men and for the adherence of fools Rule 2 - speak softly and carry a big stick Rule 3 - never ask a question that you don't know the answer to

I think you've subsequently answered this yorself. It's however many the Inspector says are required. And as long as his decision is within the paramaters of 'reasonable', that may be the end of it.

Gleditsia tricanthos Inermis

Honey Locust! Black Locust is Robinia pseudoacacia

The current Guidance is not as helpful as the old Guidance, which was not as fixated on public places but said that a reasonable degree of public benefit must accrue. Your reporter seems to be happy that a reasonable degree of benefit accrues. Is he wrong to conclude that dozens of surrounding residents are sufficient in terms of quantitiy of enjoyment to be equivalent to a 'public'? Proably not. The Act says nothing about 'public', that word only comes from the Guidances. Paraphrasing the old Guidance, what do you conclude, objectively, as to whether their removal would have a significant impact on the local environment and its enjoyment by the surrounding residents? Concentrate on the word 'significant'. Yes or no?

Sorry, I don't understand. Those are the factors that make up 'amenity value'! You can't put any of them aside. "Is it necessary for the tree to have amenity value i.e. can it be seen from a public place and what is a public place?" Visibility from a public place is not the definition of amenity, and is not enough on its own. A public place is a public place. It has no formal meaning. So think adopted roads and footpaths, commons, public open spaces, parks, town squares... Are you appealing against the making of a TPO or the refusal of TPO consent?

Paul, as long as the AA is sure the public will understand...

From government guidance What might a local authority take into account when assessing amenity value? When considering whether trees should be protected by an Order, authorities are advised to develop ways of assessing the amenity value of trees in a structured and consistent way, taking into account the following criteria: Visibility The extent to which the trees or woodlands can be seen by the public will inform the authority’s assessment of whether the impact on the local environment is significant. The trees, or at least part of them, should normally be visible from a public place, such as a road or footpath, or accessible by the public. Individual, collective and wider impact Public visibility alone will not be sufficient to warrant an Order. The authority is advised to also assess the particular importance of an individual tree, of groups of trees or of woodlands by reference to its or their characteristics including: size and form; future potential as an amenity; rarity, cultural or historic value; contribution to, and relationship with, the landscape; and contribution to the character or appearance of a conservation area. Other factors Where relevant to an assessment of the amenity value of trees or woodlands, authorities may consider taking into account other factors, such as importance to nature conservation or response to climate change. These factors alone would not warrant making an Order.

Blue Book here, please note it pre-dates the 2012 Regs. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tree-preservation-orders-guidance

Paul, thanks for explaining. I am just one voice in this debate, which sounds like it has been round the houses a few times already. You won't get any dissent from aspirant contractors about the word 'affiliated'. It would recognise their efforts, indicate a basic level of competence and encourage uptake of the approved contractor scheme in general. I'm all for the scheme. I still have a problem with 'affiliated', though. Althogh it has loose meanings, the formal meanings all express a degree of contractual agreement or co-ownership/control betwen the parties, even if one party is subordinate. Effectively licensing a contractor to use the term 'affiliated contractor' doesn't satisfy my basic test for the word. And it still doesn't convey the meaning of transition. I would even put it as strongly as this - 'Affiliated' means a higher grade of relationship 'Approved' does. And just be careful if there is a dispute between the contractor and a client, the AA could be implicated initially and to divorce itself from proceedings would have to prove that 'affiliated' doesn't mean 'affiliated'. I suspect it could be worse than that, even if it proved no affiliation the client could say that they only appointed the contractor based on it being affiliated to its regulatory body. That's the AA implicated. Or at least dragged down. SSIP is all very well, but this is abut QA and not safety. My experience of QA systems is that they abhor affiliation without Assurance because they have responsibility for the subordinate affiliate but cannot assure quality. Sorry if it all sounds negative, but I am trying to be helpful. Does the AA have a tame lawyer it can ask?

Almost certainly Shaggy Parasol Chlorophyllum rhacodes, but don't eat it on my say-so.