daltontrees

Worth checking for Armilleyria...

I just got my Makita 3 genuine new batteries to celebrate it's 20th birthday. I swear this drill will outlast me. Got a big job putting together recycled plastic wood planters coming up, so no mucking about with wimpy cheap rubbish. I expect I'll always be a Makita user because this drill is showing no signs of needing replaced.

Fair do's. But I suppose that fundamentally the common law is unwritten, and case law is only written statements of its interpretation in particular disputed circumstances.

I had an even stranger thought about the hedge owner going out and giving the 'headge' a good talking to, ordering it (King Canute style) not to grow into his neighbour's garden.

Sorry, but that's not true. A tree or hedge owner does not have to contain it. He will be responsible for any nuisance or damage it causes. But until this is foreseeable or actionable, nothing need be done about simple encroachment.

I have seen this situation a few times. Here's a couple of points to add to what people have already told you. Doorstepping that amounts to harrassment will go against you in the longer term if it goes to court. By all menas go and ask but don't demand. The interest is compound interest, the suggestionb made about how to calculate it is based on simple interest and will result in too high an interest payment. If you really need to know how to do it the way the banks do it, let me know by PM and I will send an excel spreadsheet that does it. You don't want to give the other side ammunition in a court case. Your main problem is that the interest period is not defined. It is a very good idea to state that the interest period starts from x days after the date on which payment is first due, usually the date of invoice. Because you haven't defined the period, the courts would consider what is reasonable. One month is probably OK. You may still have to argue that this is normal and fair, it really ought to be in the quote rahtert han the invoice so that it is part of the contract. The wording suggested about taking it to court would be better if it didn't say 'will result in a CCJ'. It should not be presumptuous, it shoudl say 'if [the action is] succesful it will result in a County Court Judgement against you that could affect your credit rating and could incur additional costs for you if it has to be enforced." The courts will allow juducial interest to be added, but not if you are already charging interest. The key to getting the courts on your side for late iterest is to get the claim in, registered and served. By the by, using email is arguably OK but it is not as good as a registered delivery letter. Ideally both. And finally, it is best to issue an invoice and final demand with interest added than to ask for it in court for the first time or to threaten it in your next communication. You are probably in a queue of creditors. Get to the front of it by appearing to be the least soft option for the debtor to ignore.

Good explanation!

The white vertical streaks are almost certainly resin from burst resin blisters, and my money is on one of the Abies (Fir), most likely grandis.

Sorry, I thought you said 10% reduction. A 10% thin would make just about no difference whatsoever. Save your ammo for a 10% reduction away from the building. The extent of amenity provided on that side that is visible to the public would be minimal, but cutting back from the building would improve daylighting to rooms and would be relatively slow to grow back. Beneficial rooting on that side will be limited by the building foundations and I am pretty sure a chestnut could take quite a lot of planar reduction without either adverse effect or loss of public amenity. Plus exploit the under-canopy area for summer shade and a fabulous dining area?

A bit of research on 'economic loss' in caselaw and possibly even directly in Mynors, I think will show this is a non-starter. TPOs are after all an imposition on a landowner (if he sees them that way) and if they were to be the trigger for an award of compensation for economic loss, we'd sure know about it.

I suggest postcrete instead of concrete, bulked out with rubble. The important bit is width of the hole in the direction of the wall. Last one I did I got the post in place and wedged a 450 slab in front of it then filled around with dry postcrete then hydrated.

It doesn't matter which came first. The tree was TPOd and unless the reasons that made it suitable for TPO at that time have changed, an appeal shouldn't interforer with the Council's decision to retain it despite the effect it might be having on the current occupier's business. That's neither pro nor anti tree, that's just the way the law and therefore the system is. If the occupier disagrees, an application can be made, and then an appeal. No application fees but unless supported by some substantive argument (which won't come free) this route will cost the occupier. I wouldn't worry about the public purse, it's a level playing field. I agree a 10% reduction (by volume a la 3998) will be put back on by the tree in no time.

I've used SLRs for years, the great advantage was that the picture would be what you saw through the viewfinder, particularly as the metering was throguh the lens. The size of SLRs means large siameter lenses which gather a lot of light meaning pictures in poor light conditions. Much has changed when cameras went digital, light levels are not so important as the digital sensor can be made to work in low light conditions. Increasingly even SLRs have real-time screens on teh back so that many people now don't even look through a viewfinder, they look a tthe screen to see what they're going to get. Lens interchangeability is still an advantage with SLRs, because zooms witha wide range are a significant compromise compared to several lenses covering the same range of focal lengths. I currently use a Nikon EOS 3100 and Nikon D100, and I also have a film Nikon F2. I use a fisheye lens with the D100 for stereographic images for high hedges cases, but rarely change lenses thereafter. It is more important to have a wide angle lens than a telehoto, because you can zoom in later digitally but can't re-create a wider view once you've left the scene. The modern SLRs have anti-vibration gadgetry, which works noticeably well, but I would say that one of the best things about SLRs is that they are heavy and therefore don't shake easily. Lightweight cameras are great for portability but you're more likely to get blurred pictures. And I ile that if one bit of an SLR breaks, it can be replaced. Not so with other cameras. My D100 lens is playing up, so I can keep the body and am shopping around for a second-hand replacement lens. All my filters and lens hoods will fit the replacement lens. I like that, indeed it drives me nuts when good kit has to eb chucked out because one little bit of plastic snaps off. A word of warnig abut Nikon. As someone else said, they are trading off their name - their more recent lenses are plastic and don't last. The D3100 was barely a year old when the aotofocus started to stick. The D100 lens no longer works on manual focus, which drives me crazy since I can't be bothered with autofocus (try taking a picture of a leaf and it focuses on the sky behind). I am on eBay a fair bit trying to get e new lens, and the 18-55mms that come with the current Nikons are a dime a dozen, all being ditched by their owners I suspect because they are starting to show signs of failing autofocus. You can get a modern 18-55 for £30, but one that is 10 years old, back when Nikon still meant quality and lenses were still made of metal, costs you £200 second-hand. To be honest, for work I would like a bridge camera, the zoom ranges are incredible and they are pretty compact without being too flimsy. But I will possibly be the last person still using a SLR because for versatility, creativity, complete control and almost endless expansion possibilities they can't yet be beat. But can I recommend a current SLR for £300 for someone whose going to explore photography with it? I don't think I can. My wife got her Nikon as her model of the 3100 was being discontinued, and it was discounted and was a bargain, but I would be wary unless I had read reports from a non-partisan magazine. There used to be dozens of mainstream SLR makers, now it's just Nikon and Canon, in an ever-diminishing market. They are cutting corners. Only their pro and semi-pro stuff seems to be any use, as it is made for people who aren't tryin g to choose between SLR and other formats. Poeple for whom control is more important than convenience. Quality of pictures for point-and-shoot punters is hardly the issue any more. An iPhone can compete with an SLR now. So in my view it depends what kind of person you are buying for. I think £300 will just about get a reliable SLR.

I've been using nothing but Arboroil on most of my saws for the last 4 years. Not the slightest problem with it. It dilutes at 5 to 1 with water, so I can carry a couple of litres into the woods and as long as I find a stream I can make up 12 litres. I don't use it on my 200Ts though, teh oiler pipe and the hole on the bar are too small and it just doesn't seem to work. I run them on normal bar oil and since they don't get used for long periods a little oil lasts a long time. Arboroil has probably saved me £00s over the years. Customers react well to knowing that I use it.

Have a look at Ganoderma applanatum.

And that was one of my uncharacteristically short ones!

I seem to remember being told to be careful to distinguish between colonisation and infection. Colonisation is the establishment of the pathogen on the tree, perhaps a spore in a wound. Infection is when the germinated spore enters into the cells of the host tree. So I think it refers to how the fungus gets in. The primary ones are sapwood intact, sapwood exposed, active pathogenisis and heartwood. If I'm right. it's not the same as decay strategies which relate to the woody component attacked (lignin, cellulose, hemi-cellulose) and come usually under the headings of white, brown and simultaneous rots. These are infection rather than colonisation. So again if I'm right the main ways for a fungus to get in is through a wound, through a decayed taproot or deep wound into heartwood, by being there dormant since the tree's infancy or by forcing its way in through the roots.

Just to fine-tune Paul Melarange's good advice, yes D.c. will not kill living wood but it can and does cause deadwood to break off a tree rather than disintegrate while still attached to the tree. There would be times when its presence might justify pre-emptive removal of large pieces over high target areas.

The short answer for me is no. The longer answer is that, as I mentioned in reply to Paul Barton's point, that if an aadditional set of criteria are used by an individual arb, they must be clearly stated and consistently applied. But I think there is no scope for changing the fundamental criteria or 'scopes' of the categories. Fine-tune and explain, yes, change and explain, no. The difficulty I was having with the other poster on here (insofar as onlookers might have wanted to adopt his approach is that (as I would have it) I am doing what the Standard says to do but he was doing what he remembered someone telling him it says. By the time an onlooker tries to defend his or her interpretation of the Standard it would be 'I am doing what someone from the internet I don't really know and whose work I havent seen said he was told once, by someone who may or may not have been involved in writing the Standard, what it should have meant'. There is scope for personal styles, but that is taking it too far. I see the BS as written too vaguely to be used on its own as a specification in the contractual sense, but I think it is entirely right to specify that it is complied with or that bits of it are used exactly. That might seem contradictory, but there is an important difference. Specifications are used as the basis of contracts, anmd contracts need to be clear and enforceable or they wll give rise to unresolvable disputes between the parties. The language used in BSs (and I am thinking of course of 5837 in particular) is not set up with two or more contracting parties in mind. You can't say 'in return for a fee of £X, party A (the arb) will do all the tree bits in BS5837 and then partyy B will pay him'. There are parts of the Standard that say users of it 'should' do such-and-such or 'may'. That's no use in a contract. Using it a s a spec would require firming up which bits are to to be done and whether the shoulds and mays are to be musts. I hope that makes sense.

I have two awkward 200s and an awkward 230, was wondering if it was worth sending them to Spud. Like treewswinger, the experience oif local dealers is pretty dismal and expensive. May package them up for you Spud, if that's OK?

Ah but a marriage license is the most powerful trump card there is. I am reminded of a quote I heard once something like, arguing with a woman is like trying to read an airmail edition of The Times in a strong wind.

OK, we disagree. I haven't been told how to interpret it, I am just using the BS by the ordinary rules of the english language, with a bit of Gaelic thrown in now and again. The part quoted by Paul Barton is relevant. 'transparent, understandable and systematic way'. If your reports say that you are differentiating between species in terms of quality or value, the reader will know that and can make allowances for your system.

I agree it can be puzzling. The important bit for me is that it says 'the context of proposed development', not 'the context of a proposed development' or 'the context of the proposed development'. The context is tehrefore that there is development proposed, and that trees may need to be removed, protected or avoided. My view is that it allows the class of development to be contemplated, but not the layout. So, trees in a residential development site can be assessed for quality in the context of them either enhancing or detracting from residential amenity. Apart from close up, the shape and size of a tree and how it affects buildings is largely the same whatever the species. Yes it's valid for a designer to differentiate between species at the detailed design stage, but it's not for an arb to pre-empt that by creating his or her own arbitrary sub-sub categories for some species.

I was just trying to help you and anyone else that has come up against the apparent need to sub-sub-categorise trees. I'm using the BS correctly because among other things I don't pick up a pen until I have understood, digested, mulled over and dry-run things. You do it your way. It's easy to find problems, solutions are a little more elusive. i have been through this problem witha fine-tooth comb and it is apparent that there can only be one solution.

Thanks for clarification, Gary, yes it just means 'Dear Lord!'