daltontrees

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.

Paul, the idea seems like a good one, as long as it's time-bound. Incidentally, how did you come up with 'Affiliate'? It expresses to me a degree of legal attachment. Wouldn't 'Probationary' be better? And it has the advantage of having a different initial, too many AAACs will just lead to confusion and encourage abuse. Whatever word is chosen should convey to the public the sense of transition, trial and incompleteness.

Lignowhats? Do tell!

Funny you should say that, I think there has been research into de-budding to produce this type of tissue to be used as a means of propagating species that otherwise are difficult to grow from cuttings.

Me too, because as I look into it I dicover that sphaeroblast tissue is often juvenile in character and rich in adventitious material.

Your're in shrinkable clay and persistent soil moisture deficiency country, so choose someone decent.

Probably Aspen, Populus tremula

Could be Pseudotrametes gibbosa syn. Trametes gibbosa, the 'Stump Grinder'.

I have a vague feeling that sphaeroblast tissue, being bud-free, is capable of rooting that branch tissue of the same tree isn't. There may therefore also be a gravitropic tendency to the growth, in other words favouring downward growth. Perhaps this tendency is a throwback in evolution to ancestral species that could and would produce downward growing sphaeroblasts as a means of vegetative reproduction and spread.

Yep, I am provisionally enrolled for the course there in a couple of weeks' time.

What line of work?

10% of UK jobs are in construction (DBIS figure, 2013), 32% of the deaths.

Thanks Rob and Chris. I was kind of thinking of 3 years but if it takes 5 I'm sure I'll stick it out. Up here in Scotland, there's so few options of training. Every course I track down from Google is in England, except 2 providers up here who fortunately look pretty good nand are linked in some good way to BCT. Neither do training beyond August because the wee critters (the bats, not the trainers) are getting sluggish and thinking about hibernating. I am killing time in a way till next year, but in another way I am hoping to fill in blanks in my knowlege of nature, training myself to look at landscapes systematically and scientifically the way I have done for years with trees and geology. I have found it very hard to follow what is needed to be a licensed bat consultant. Somewhere between knowing the right people and having spent megabucks on various accredited courses and dozens of nightshifts outdoors. But then, tree work is a bit like that, CS 30, 31, 38, 39 .... there are cheaper university degrees. I shall look a bit further into it. I never thought about BSBI, so thanks for the recommendation. But it's the same old issue, courses are all in England. I'm not anti english, it's just that it adds a day's travel to and a day's travel from courses and travel expenses, which all adds up to £400 on top of course fees and puts them out of financial reach. And I'm not making any sort of political point here, but scottish courses make you learn scottish and english law/regulation/species while english only deal with english and don't prepare you for practice in any other country. Like the AA Tech, it's hard to un-learn the unnecessary bits and learn the necessary bolt-ons.

I am hoping to do a course soon called Phase 1 Habitat Survey, not for any exact purpose but I am getting increasingly interested in bats and eventually I think it could be useful in looking at bat feeding grounds. And there does seem to be an occasional Planning demand for this type of survey. Has anyone done such a course, was it beneficial and where did it take you? Any advice much appreciated.

Maybe there's a market for Teflon tippers?

Sorry to laugh at another's misfortune, but that's hilarious!

This is a whole different business. Most of the debate so far has been about slow damage by roots. Sudden damage by falling trees or branches is a different subject. Here's a way of looking at it. You have to protect your neighbour against foreseeable risk to him and his property. If an overhanging branch falls off into his garden and breaks something it was either (i) reasonably foreseeable and you're liable or (ii) not reasonably foreseeable and you're not liable. In this simple way insurance doesn't come into it. Maybe the way to insure against the risk is to get a tree surveyor (a competent, qualified, experienced and insured one) to give you a paid-for, written report saying whether there are foreseeable risks. If there are, act on them. If there aren't, sleep easy because you are protected.

Thanks. Seems you are drifting there towards the position that the disposal costs should be recoverable from the tree owner if the removals were as a result of abatement of an actionable nuisance. If so, a dispute about costs would be settled on retrospective proof that the nuisance was actionable. Without a legal precedent to stand on, it seems anyway that that is the sort of fair and balanced position that a court would apply, as it would be consistent with established law.

Trees 101: It's not wrong (legally) either.

A very mature view and I agree, but I'm glad to say I've never had a situation turn sour and be tested in courts. But out of curiosity, what is your view of what should happen if the cost of removing the arisings chucked over the fence was as much as £1,000 and the tree owner wanted to raise an action to recover this cost of removal? cost of

I don't thjink it can have been Charlton v Charlton, I think I had picked up wrong on something in Siddiqui v Hillindon. Therefore I have to apologise, the situation of course has to be that heave caused by the removal of a tree from adjacent land is not actionable. What could be actionable, as you say, is negligent advice from an arb or engineer that someone relied on to remove their own tree and which subsequently caused heave to tehir own building. In brief, heave is only likely if a building was built while the ground was clays that had shrunk because of the water uptake of a tree. Removal of the tree would allow rehydration, causing heave and damage to the building. So it cannot be the case that allowing re-wetting of a neigbour's land couldn't be an actionable nuisance because the neighbour has no legal basis on which to rely upon ongoing dehydration and clay shrinkage. There's still a niggle in my mind, but it relates to exceptional circumstances of unnaturally increasing the volume of water discharged onto a downhill neighbour's land, which is unlawful. I don't think it relates to tree removal. As with your posting, I would urge people not to rely on my postings on Arbtalk but to take independent advice on any issue causing them concern. Personally I hate to get it wrong and always try my best to help and to tidy up after myself, but if you want advice you can sue on if it's wrong, commission and pay for it.

Thanks, that's very helpful. I'm going to mull it over for a few hours and reply properly.

Ingenious! That's what I will do. Thank you both. I am sooo pleased.

A bit rubbish to quote myself here, but as I made that last comment I felt a little uncomfortable about it firstly as to whether it is correct (I recall a case that suggested it is) and secondly as to whether it is fair. Anyone know the first one or have a view on the second?