AA Teccie (Paul)

The Planning Inspectorate, the body who undertake appeals. Previously done by arb inspectors, independently, but more recently by in-house staff (usually non-arbs) . This is a positive move both in terms of arb specific inspectors and more resources = reduced time for appeals...hopefully.

Dunno Mick, you always make me check myself...but I've yet to meet a climbing arb who hasn't had at least a nick from the handsaw. The pending Technical Guide 2 deals with use of tools in the tree and includes a section on handsaw use (I'll post a draft if I can put my hands on it.) Yeah, run down is quicker and hence 'less serious' cuts / injuries appen.

Good choice...Myerscough for me, I didn't travel well back then Yes, 25 handsaw to 1 chainsaw, or probably even higher...this is a guesstimate based on anecdotal evidence. I'm sure most would agree, "there or thereabouts". Going forward I wonder how many chainsaw cuts will be incurred through battery saws as opposed to petrol chainsaws...both very capable of cutting / injuring, and perhaps there'll be no difference, but my inclin is battery saws will be less, or less significant cuts / injuries maybe.

Probably summat like 25-1, or more even. Struggled to injure yerself with a 21" Sandvik, really? I must have been the 'clumsy' one of the bunch then Which caves did you originate from Mick? Paul

I'd (formally) reapply...today!

Is the original application not still live if they've not determined it, i.e. not issued refusal...which you could then appeal?

Surely this statement relates to pruning of LA owned trees given increasingly diminishing budgets and hence doing the minimum perhaps to meet their 'DoC' responsibilities.

Hi there, Sorry, but I don't recognize that condition / wording as being from the template (copy attached.) The 3rd party issue in the Ts & Cs refers to working on 'their' trees, i.e. trees outside of the enquirers property. Ts & Cs Template v6.1 (2018).doc I'm guessing the condition you cite relates to 'consequential heave' or similar (a complex matter.) Perhaps written confirmation that said condition would not apply in this instance may suffice. Cheers, Paul

Both City & Guilds AND Lantra (Awards) now offer qualification opportunities, i.e. assessments, and both use the same titles but not references (see attached.) Only Lantra offer training courses (and FISA of course for ground based stuff.) Forestry and arboricultural qualifications v0.2 27.09.13.docx

Hi all, Has anybody experienced the same? Been back to the suppliers still new, who fitted a new pump, but problem's recurred. Thanks in anticpation, Paul

Wall doesn't (yet) look unstable...poly-filla and retain a while longer Without the option to build into the footpath I can't readily see an engineering solution unfortunately. An alternative approach could be to remove the section of wall affected, above the inside ground level of course, and replace with fencing appen Shame, a nice tree...sorry Ben Paul ("chocolate fireguard")

Cheers Mick, didn't want to interrupt him ...n didn't know/realize that tbh Paul (the 'not so' teccie Teccie)

A reasonable assumption...but . C'mon Edward C. we're awaiting your answer Cheers, Paul

Think the confirmation is a separate document...hopefully Edward or Chris will be along shortly to 'confirm.' You could enquire with the LPA TO. Cheers, Paul

Morning all, and apologies here for relatively short notice...but hopefully at least some of you will still join me . 'Next' Weds. 22nd May at Parkill Hill Training, just north of Leicester (for more info and booking see https://www.trees.org.uk/Training-And-Events/Course-Detail?id=95A03586-3841-42B6-8E7C-67E66D18BEF6 ) Thanks all n hope to see yous there...and/or at the ARB Show of course. Paul