daltontrees

Not enough info. The felling before discharging pre-commencement conditions could be a breach of Conservation Area controls AND a breach of Felling License rules. It is logicaly not possible to claim that carrying out works to implement a consent, while not having authority to commence development yet, is commencement of development. Don't need to be a fancy lawyer to work that one out. The question is whether the permission would not have been granted had it not been for the specific care home use. That could be complicated, but care homes don't come under housing land supply so the rationale for housing development could be substantially harder to prove i.e. shouln't assume housing will be permitted. It comes down to this. Were the approved tree losses only acceptable because of the specific social and other benefits of the care home?

What plants have to avoid is freezing of water within cells. This is extremely damaging. Depending on species, they may try to avoid low temperatures by staying warm. Aspen, for example, still metabolises internally at less than -10C. If that's not enough, they avoid freezing by antifeeze compounds (carbohydrates, sugars, alcohols, salts) in the cells and sap. This works down to -10C. In the reall tough plants, the cells hold only pure water, which can supercool without freezing down to -40C. In the really really tough plants anything outside the cells can freeze but the cell walls are tough enough to withstand the pressure of ice growth around them. This has been documented down to -200C.

I meant to say 'better at NOT paying it out". Post now edited to that effect. They're really expert at not paying out.

Nothing wromg with being blunt. But does 'in your view' mean that's your interpretation of the law or that's morally the right thing to do? It seems in this case the insurers have a different 'view'. My understanding of the law is that the tree owner is only liable if the failure and damage was foreseeable. My view on the morality is that insurers are really good at taking money and even better at [edit] NOT paying it out and presumably know the law and the details of the insurance policy, and arguing with them could be futile. I see you have one foot on the 'client' landmine. A client is someone thats pays you for advice and is entitled to rely on it as being professionally sound, and can sue you if it's wrong. A customer is someone that pays for work to be done. Call a customer a client and you are holding yourself out as an adviser, with all the liability that follows.

Sounds an awkward situation, but perhaps legally correct if the relevant insurance policies say so. Clearly the worst scenario is to have to remove the tree in the owner's proerty but not to have authority, access or a contract for payment to remove the bit in the neighbour's part first. So the thing to do probably is offer the tree owner to remove it all subject to the neighbour's permission for access. This should include an apportionment for insurance purposes (but not comprising separate quotes). The owner should then offer to pay it all to you knowing he will only get part of it back from his insurers or get part of it back from the neighbour (this havign been agreed in advance) who in turn knows he will get part of it back from his insurers. Acting as a broker between the parties is too much to ask of a tree work contractor. Offer for all to one customer, give an apportionment that the parties can use. I don't see the need for specific caveats about further damage to an office, just use reasonable care. And don't call him a client, 'customer' is the approriate term that avoids expectations of professional advice.

I often had the feeling that what was particularly good for TOs (and there were a disproportionately high number on UKTC, no doubt still are) was that it was all email based and one could get a few interesting emails a day to the inbox without incurring the wrath of Council IT overlords by going onto internet forums.

Ahh, WT, bless him. Endless questions and no sense that he was doing anything with the responses other than killing time. If he ever writes a book it will be colossal.

Based on Ben Edmonds' email, I stand corrected, it is still on the go but only visible to its members. That's something, anyway.

I'm sure I managed to make an arse of myself on it a few times! But I left because it was out of control. The only guy trying to keep a lid on things wasn't even formally a moderator and didn't have the owner's authority to sanction one particularly vile participant, who was openly insulting to anyone who disagreed with him (hah, he was barred and re-susbscribed using another email address, the desperate tosser). But yes it had its moments and represented a lot of wisdom in the industry. And yes it performed a role that Arbtalk can't. Unfortunately there is now nowhere officially or unoficially where professional arboriculture in the UK is being discussed constructively. Or to put the same thing in a different way, all the good stuff UKTC did is now not being done anywhere. Unless Arbtalk wants to take up the reins with a properly moderated sub-forum.

I didn't know there was such a thing, thanks. I'm not after anything in particular, but I had a look anyway. It's a bit incomplete but some pages are still recoverable.

The guy who started it up isn't even in the industry any more and didn't use the forum himself, so any cost was probably too much. It had plenty of subscribers, maybe 2,000? But most of the posts were the same couple of dozen people.

Some of you may be subscribed or have in the past been subscribed to the UKTC (UK Tree Care) mailing list. It was a real treasure trove of knowledge and opinion, with an archive going back years and years. However, it (the archive) now seems to be unavailable, as of very recently. I heard that it was costing its owner too much to host on the web, maybe he's chucked it. Anybody know what's happened?

I didn't say it wasn't complicated, but the formulae are pretty simple. Huber's formula, for example, is similar what was discussed earlier, namely volume of log equal cross sectional area of log at its midpoint, times its length. Essentially simplifying it to the equivalent of a cylinder. I should have said 'I find it piss easy'. Blissfully ignorant I am to the complexities. Despite having studied it. But then, I do geometry problems for fun. I would encourage anyone to take time out to pin down a few methods. It's the mystique about mensuration that dissuades, but the maths is simple. I woud agree that the young'uns coming through in forestry probably don't have a good grounding. And for my part I have managed to sneak into the ICF without a forestry or arb degree, but I had to do it the hard way 🙂

OK if it had been logged up then average of each log would be good. Poor guy being sent out without the basics. I had one of these cases recently, FC folk everywhere measuring everything. They gave up. It was too borderline to prove anything. But I do worry for teh future, current FC capabilities and resources are dubious.

I doubt if it was that straightforward. The FC has published a book (free) on how to measure or estimate itmber volume. By far the most fickle is working out volume based only on stumps, due to basal flare (not stem taper, that is easy to allow for). Average diameter is NOT a reliable basis for caculating volume, precisely because of taper, which is not uniform along stem. This changes depending on species, habit, exposure, growing conditions, crown damage and loads of other things. So what was the outcome, did FC drop the prosecution? I don't think you can infer incompetence from the abilities of a couple of officers. But the old guard who know their stuff are fewer and fewer. Mensuration is piss easy. FC should be able to get it right, as they wrote the book.

I agree. There are situations where the proposed works will definitely muller the tree, but if it's not an important tree I can advise my client (the LPA) that they should not be bothered about poor spec or excessive works, because it doesn't matter.

I fit was me (and bearign in mind I am a bit eccentric) I'd close the fork really tight with a ratchet strap, then coach bolt it together, then take off the ratchet strap. Then wait and see what happens over the next couple of years.

This is a somewhat problematic matter in practice. The Council should only be concerned with the effect on the amentiy of the area of the proposed works. Unlike inTPO areas the tree in a CA is not necessarily already important. But if it is, the Council will want to (i) be able to envisage the immediate loss of amenity due to the proposed works and (b) know whether the works will permanently result in loss of amenity due to bad or excessive tree works and (c) be able to check that the works have been done in accordance with the Notice (and no more). An imprecise, vague or ambiguous Notice will prevent all or any of these. The Government guidance is that "The authority is advised to refer a section 211 notice containing insufficient or unclear information back to the person who submitted it. The authority may wish to provide information to help them resubmit an appropriate notice." The implication is this. If the LPA advises that the Notice is not adequately clear, then the immunity from prosecution provided by the Act does not exist and that carrying out the works would be prima facie a statutory offence. Prosecution may follow.

Unless the Council is saying that the notification is invalid, then asking a question does not reset the clock. That's why it's so important to put in a notification that is clear as to what works are intended.

6 weeks is 6 weeks. Ignore whether they are working days, holidays, weekends. There is no specific info about this. That means 'week' means what it means in everyday usage. 7 days.

I bought a Husky (not the 592) over the counter at my local dealer on Tuesday, she told me the stock she has took a year to arrive from Husqvarna. By all accounts the UK operation is (or has been until recently) shambolic. I could have got it online for a good bit cheaper but with no guarantee of immediate delivery, so I went for the 'bird in the hand' option.

This debate was nearly a decade ago. Can you remind me pelase which Slater article you are talking about?

First one is Guelder Rose, Viburnum opulus

It is. I don't think no.2 is Camellia. On the other hand, Privet does have opposite buds and leaves.

Not sterile, but commercially always reproduced as clones.