daltontrees

Fair point. But why are they cheaper? Less useful? No hungry mouths and mortgages to feed that are setting the earnings requirement?

I could cope with that, but then, I'm one of those fools who thinks an arborist forum should be about... emmm ... arboristing, arborising... emm... I can't be doing with people who's only raison d'etre seems to be starting arguments. Anyway, back to the facts. The Equality Act says that "(1) A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others. (2) If the protected characteristic is age, A does not discriminate against B if A can show A's treatment of B to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim." In tree work, the legitimate aim is surely to get the tree down and away quickly and safely. Actually not a lot of scope in there for taking on someone marginally faster. Experience and attitude trump youthfulness most of the time. I don't see how it is OK to discriminate in favour of a young employee if there are candidates out there who can work as hard and smart as youngsters. Which in my experience is not very hard at all. Nor can I see anyone in this business applying for a job, losing out to a younger person and then actually reporting alleged discrimination to the police. Personally I might have a slight bias towards not employing young people. I will turn myself in the next time I am passing the cop shop.

As an alternative to an alpine butterfly as a midline knot this has a lot going for it, but mainly the ability to untie it afterwards if it has been heavily loaded; that can be nearly impossible on an alpine butterfly that has been loaded.

Nicely put.

Here's my office in the garden. Reinforced concerete slab, Western Red Cedar cladding, Coroline roof, 2nd-hand double-glazed door, triple glazed ex demonstration windows. Super insulated, mains electrics, surround sound system, cabin bed. Took 3 weeks to do 95% of it, taken another 2 years not to finish the window trims. Love it, though, happy efficient place to work. Came in just under the £3k budget. Permitted development limit is 8 sq.m. this is 7.96m2!

And the samurai sword is for...? Not use a Silky like everyone else?😃

I'm not sure I understand the question. But generally you can't rely on an exemption unless it's justified, and don't ask the Council if you can use the exemption, it's not their job to decide that. The exemptions can only be used to remove the issue, not the tree, and can't be used as an excuse for excessive works. But if there's no exemption available, an application is required, then refusal of removal of the whole tree is justifiable if there are lesser alternatives, including pruning, bracing, root pruning, engineering solutions or repair of driveways.

Quite so. The Council is only liable if an application has been submitted and damage was foreseeable (at the time of application) and then the Council refused permission. If there is risk, there is statutory exemption. It is not the Council's job to decide if the exemption can or can't be legitimately used, although it is it's job to decide afterwards if the exemption as been abused. There is nearly always a tree work remedy less than complete removal. All these possibilities have to be explored.

As others have said, damage to driveway does not mean damage to foundations. If the Council is not minded to lose the tree, you must demonstrate that no alternative engineering solutions are reasonably possible to keep the driveway useable (e.g. raising the level a bit then resurfacing). Also removal of a tree may not be necessary if removal of a root or two would solve the problem and not kill the trees. My suggestion is to pay for some focused advice from someone who knows what they are talking about. It might be an engineeer that knows about trees, it mught be an arb that knows about engineering. Few and far between. Too many tree reports are expensive shelf-fillers that don't get to the (pun definitely intended) root of the problem. You can't claim retrospectively for damage caused by TPO'd tree.

Awkward... the safest place to work on it might be form above, climb the sycamore and take off as much of teh ends as you can then on the ground put a sink on top of the butt and then cut directly up to it, it may be possible to get the sharp end off it that way. Then winch (not plough) from the highest position you can find?

Puffingbilly, coments weren't directed at you in particular. Just generally I see a lot of 5837 reports and the standard is pretty poor. A (now new) client came to me in the middle of the week saying he had got a 5837 report but it didn't seem to do what he needed it to. So I looked it over. It was done by an ecologist (no qualifications or experience or training stated) using the 2005 version but said it was to the 2012 version. The stated methodology was VTA, nothing else. Root Protection areas included areas under buildings and into the middle of a river. There was no constraints plan. There was no AIA. Trees to be removed weren't marked on the protection plan. Whole sections of disparate trees were grouped as a 'woodland' despite a proposed path being marked as going right through it, the path goes right through some trees not indicated anywhere as being removed. Just a CEZ barrier that staggered around the site in unrealistically short sections. Shocking. The planning authority wil never get to see it. I will be re-doing it from scratch. The client checked twice that my fee was correct, he couldn't believe it was so low relative to the previous report fee. Sickening that we have all these standards and systems and legislation in place and too often it achieves nothing.

I'm with you on that. It was also a Steve Wright trait that always bugged me. That and talking or even worse singing all over the end of records. I won't miss him. But we'll probably get some self-absorbed monotonic Mills/Moyles clone in his place and Radio 2 will be officially a no-go area from the start of Jeremy Whine right through to just after Zoe Ball in the morning.

Good point, well made.

Absolutely. It's the client's tree. The only person thart can make him fell it agaist his will is the Forestry Commission (sanitation felling) or a court of law (say, actionable nuisance).

I agree with you and john87 on this. There are a lot of people high up in the tree world going around stating that Councils are obliged to provide for tree planting and protection, but for their convenience they omit the 'wherever appropriate' bit. In effect the legislation is not there to create an obligation to plant or protect, it is there to create an obligation to use conditions to give effect to appropriate decisions to do so. A very important distinction. Beware of deliberate or careless ignorance of it.

Agreed. Arbs recommend, clients decide. If they are involved, Planners take a view on that.

I could have been clearer. Clause 5.4.3 of BS5837 says the AIA should show the trees to be removed. BUT it is not for the Arb to decide that, it is for the client to do in consitation with the designers and having regard to the arb evidence. It is almost never the job of the arb to justify removals, but the arb should provide all the data and evidence needed for the client to make informed decisions about this. Recommedations can be made, but the client doens't need to follow them. It is therefore downright ridiculous for the situation ever to arise where the arb shows a tree as to be removed in the final report submitted to Planning unless the client has told him to do so. There is a clean break between the survey/constraints plan and the AIA/protection plan. In reality, people like me regularly do a survey and TCP then the client says 'fine now here's the design that we've decided on, do an AIA'. That after all is what the AIA is for, it shows the effect of the selected design on the trees, sometimes meaning removal, sometimes pruning, sometimes protection. I usually tell the client what the consequences of the design are and give him a last opporotunity to adjust, then the AIA goes to print and to Planning. Too many arbs get sucked into justifying the removals, but it is not their job to do so, it's not necessary and it's rarely helpful if the evidence is already there in the survey report and schedule. I work for many of the volume house builders, as well as for Councils and many others. If I just once submitted a report to Planning without client's prior approval, I'd get my arse kicked, and rightly so. I'd kick it myself if I could. The moment the report goes to Planning there is a possibility of approval with conditions that hold the client to the protection measures. Whereas a Council is unlikely to enforce removal of trees if the client changes his mind, it's professionally a sloppy situation to put the client in.

The recommendation should not be made unless the tree is potentially affected by the development. And the recommendation should not appear in the final report unless and until the client wants it to be.

You can. No consultant should state that a tree is to be removed without the client's approval. Gnenerally no consultant shoudl finalise a report wihtout client's approval.

Yoo were charged £2500 for that? It's the sort of thing I do routinely for £350. Only better.

The trees are protected by the planning conditions. Council entirely within its rights to do this. Indeed, the legislation says it's an obigation on the Council to use conditions to protect trees.

Looks very much like Luncombe, with tell-tale mucronate lobes.

Shameful attitude.

Heave is only a potential issiue if there are shrinkable clays. Concentrate on that, before moving on to the other issues, like trees and fundations.

Top is cherry, it even has a cherry in the picture. Probably Gean Prunus avium. 2nd one is Common Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna