daltontrees

I used to play this until a couple of months ago I go it it first guess. "DAISY". Kind of taken the excitement out of it for me. Second word was usually "ROUTE" or "OUTER" depending on clues.

I got my start by writing a nice letter to every consultant within 30 miles of me. Got 3 responses, one of them became a regular client, he became my main sponsor for ICF chartership. I am snowed under and have 2 regular subbies. You have to make it easy for them to get in touch with you (business card, mobile no. and email) at short notice when they're short-handed. Then put in a whinge-free shift with good clean data in the most useful format.

I like the old favourite (although not fussed about the God bit). “I think that I shall never see A poem lovely as a tree. A tree whose hungry mouth is pressed Against the earth's sweet flowing breast; A tree that looks at God all day And lifts her leafy arms to pray; A tree that may in summer wear A nest of robins in her hair; Upon whose bosom snow has lain; Who intimately lives with rain. Poems are made by fools like me, But only God can make a tree.” ― Joyce Kilmer, Trees & Other Poems But I also like the Ogden Nash parody that seems more pertinent to modern life "I think that I shall never see A billboard lovely as a tree. Indeed, unless the billboards fall, I'll never see a tree at all.

might be what's known as a sphaeroblast.

A few have just started turning up in my garden and now regulars at the feeder.

best ignore him, we're all just waiting till he runs out of smartass comments and buggers off.

I think I hit it dead on target. The OP specified various aspirations for the statement tree. Monkey puzzle would have been a very poor choice on several of those. "F#*k it ... Wack in a monkey puzzle 😭" was not even vaguely on point. Not helped by the unnecessary vulgarity. I hope the OP realises that you are not representative of the industry.

not native, no autumn show, does badly on level poorly drained sites.

not native

I think your problem there is that the TO is stubborn and jobsworthy and maybe not too clued up on how trees actually work. I'm trying not to use a more succinct word for him. That sort of attitude just breeds resentment and encourages pre-emptive felling. I personally think that offsetting is somethimed justifiable but I like to show that there is at least 2x as much rooting available in the offset side. Offsetting was stopped because people were taking the piss. Quite right.

It takes so long to know if it works or not. I have seen limes with Kretzschmaria that I suspect have contracted it following roote severance a decade or more beforehand. The primitive 12x rule also overprotects trees compared with the ISA guidelines and underprotects for other trees especially ancient and veteran where the Ancient Tree Forum urges 15x. or drip line + 5 metres. Personally I am not in favour of simple if it is also wrong, no matter how dumb the users are. Educating them and enforcing will save trees, using a system that underprotects won't. Likewise if overprotection (or the perception of it) stimulates pre-emptive felling then that should be addressed ratherh than pretending that the system works and then seeing trees die in a few years. I don't share your concerns about enforecement difficulties. Protection should be dimensioned and set out and checked on site, and after that it doesn't matter what the shape is. It would be so much better if, when using the 12x system, we knew that it worked and why.

Exec summary (which is not an excuse for not reading the whole thing) - BS5837 has got dumbed down over the years and then frozen in time with the 12x multiplier based on a single bit of superseded research. Meantime the rest of the world has moved on and we appear frozen in the past.

I have just put this on a facebook group but I am posting exactly the same thing here for anyone that's interested. I believe a draft of revised BS5837 is due soon. WIth this in mind I set out to try and get to the bottom of where we got our RPR = 12 x dbh system. Turns out it has come from a single superseded publication in 1998 by Matheny and Clark which even they have moved on from. Attached is a link to my notes which systematically goes throught every calculation method in BS5837 (1980, 1991, 2005 and 2012). I am not advocating anything in particular, but I hope as many TOs and consultants will pitch in on the revised BS from a slightly better informed position, whatever your suggestions are. Comments public or private welcome, but don't shoot, I'm just the messenger. HISTORY OF THE DIMENSIONS OF ROOT PROTECTION IN BS5837.pdf

A couple of things to observe here. Firstly you are being needlessly offensive. Second you are wrong. I hope you aren't advising customers of clients, at least for their sakes. Try and keep up to date with what the law is. You're jsut making a fool of yourself. I was trying to be helpful by pointing out your mistake. Even if you don't care, perhaps it might remind others that the dying and diseased exemption hasn't existed for over a decade.

There is NO dying or diseased exemption. Removing protected trees on that basis would be a strict liability offence.

I don't know. But new Regulations were needed anyway. The 1969 Regulations were remade in 1999, then again in 2012. It's like buses, none come for ages then two come along at once. Politicians liek to shift things form primary to secondary legislation so tha the Ministers can mess about with them afterwards without full parliamentary approval.

Only if you want to.

I thought the reference to DDD was dead dying dangerous. That exemption no longer exists. Huge chunks of the 1990 Act were repealed, and most of the exemptions were re-made in the 2012 Regulations. Including abatemnt of nuisance.

This looks prertty simple. The owner of the dodgy trees knows about them. It knows that you know that they know about them. Liabiity is with them. Do nothing else, spend no money, commission no reports, engage no solicitors, make no applications to Council. Don't stand under the trees in strong winds until the owner sorts them out.

Planning Act 2008 (c. 29), ss. 192(2)(b)

25 deals with TPO restrictions. 26 deals with common law rights. I don't really see a contradiction. There might not have been a Welsh high court decision but the House of Lords in Lemmon v Webb and the Kings Bench in Earl of Lonsdale v Nelson. The Welsh parliament has stated its intention to get rid of the statutory nuisance exemption if and when it ever gets around to producing its own planning Act (been in discussion for 5 years now). It's pretty naive for a few reasons.

I am more than familiar with Perrin, and it casts such doubt on the idea that the nuisance needs to be actionable that personally I find that the 'actionable' test is fictitious. So did the judges.

6" x 2"s would only be suitable for a 8' span. Rafters and joists are for different things.

That part of the Act was repealed in 2008.

Not completely, my view is that there would have to be reasons for the work i.e. prevention or removal of an actiual nuisance (in the legal sense of the word).