Squaredy

3 hours ago, Shiny steve said:

Hello, is there any interest in a bit of monkey puzzle in Kent. I'm bringing down a 35-40 ft tree about 18" diameter at base. 

 

Not sure if I'm going to plank it or ring it for turning blanks 

Turning blanks surely the way to go.  Unremarkable as boards - just knotty softwood, but I think turners may like it due to the symmetrical knots.

15 minutes ago, warren said:

 

I'm a tree surgeon (no shit sherlock). I want to buy a lathe to turn bowls from the stuff i cut down. Would hmrc throw a wobbly if i brought one through the company to use up my tax dollars rather than give it to them ???

 

Your accountant is the person to ask.  But the answer is if it is wholly for business use then that should be fine.  If challenged you might have to show how it is used in your business.

3 hours ago, Woodworks said:

Just fixing up an old barn and the cladding is knackered. Wanting maximum ventilation but don't want driving rain getting in. Heard that hit and miss boarding is about the best way to achieve this. Not sure how thick the boards should be or the best material but guessing larch would be a safe bet. Any feedback on the above good or bad would be much appreciated. 

Here is a bit of lateral thinking.....how about horizontal waney (or square) edge cladding (Larch or DF) but with short wedges (say 200mm long and 25mm thick tapering down to say 6mm) cleverly positioned where they overlap so that each board is sticking out at the bottom and the boards do not touch.

Not sure I have worded that well but what I am picturing will look solid from the side but will be full of air gaps if you look up at it from the outside.  Like a waney edge louvre effect.  Might need a little bit of inventiveness to get it right but it would give great ventilation and keep all the rain off even when windy.

8 hours ago, Chris at eden said:

Why would you think that?  Subsidence is way more common than heave.  If the tree continues to grow then the subs risk will increase. If the frequency and length of droughts continue to increase then the risk of subs will increase. 

 

Then in again the house could have sufficient foundations. A lot of old houses have cellars. It’s difficult to say without the facts but the situation where heave is the bigger risk are pretty rare. 

 

My my advice to the OP is get it looked at properly. 

I meant the risk if the tree is removed.  Of course if the tree remains the risk is subsidence, but the OP was asking how to avoid heave if the tree is felled.

3 minutes ago, benedmonds said:

Looks a lot more then 6m tall unless it has been topped just above the photo..?

Still not sure what a structural engineer will tell you...

Or what you could do if one did say heave was likely.. 

I guess you could just keep the tree.

I am happy to be corrected..

Subsidence risk is more likely then heave imo.

 

Yeah maybe a catch 22.  Leave it there and perhaps get subsidence.  Remove it and possibly get heave....

I think you are right to be concerned.  The tree clearly has been there a long time.  The house may well have foundations not very deep.  You might get away with felling it without a thought, but it is not worth the risk.

Get a professional structural surveyor involved and possibly an arboriculturalist.  I would speak to the insurance company first - they may well recommend a course of action.  After all, you are trying to ensure they don't end up with a multiple thousand pound claim, so they should be very helpful.

My house is also built on clay and is the same vintage as yours and last year we had subsidence caused (in part) by a small apple tree.  Your risk as you say is heave not subsidence, but equally destructive.

1 hour ago, joepatr said:

Hi all

 

I’m based in North West London (an area with shrinkable clay subsoil) and currently have an oak tree in my garden, approx 6/7 metres tall. 

 

I’d like to have this taken down eventually but am obviously concerned about the risk of not only subsidence but also heave. 

 

Could anyone recommend the best way to manage this to ensure ensure the safety of my property? I was thinking the best way would be to have the tree slowly reduced over a period of time before having the stump totally removed. 

 

Would this be the way forward, if so, how much and over what period? I was thinking taking it down in quarters over the next few years but one of the local tree surgeons suggested thirds every couple of months. 

 

I’d be grateful for any suggestions and also any companies in the Hillingdon area who could help. 

A bit more detail about the house might help.  If it is modern with the correct footings it may well be a non issue.

35 minutes ago, Chrisy B said:

Hi all,

 

not sure urge if I’m correct with this or if I’m just being overly cautious.. Currently a Lucas mill on eBay, as I’m sure most do emailed the guy to see what kind of money he wanted and half sorted a deal. Unfortunately it’s in Northern Ireland and I’m in West Yorkshire so got prices to move it back home. 

 

Now the guy will only accept bacs as payment, I offered to cover the PayPal fees just to give me cover but seemed to be a lot of excuses to why he wouldn’t accept PayPal.. Now isn’t replying to any texts or phone calls, initial text was that he’d been in a car accident and had lost hearing in both ears... 

 

Just a heads up really that it’s looking like a con!

 

 

Would you send a total stranger thousands of pounds on a promise, with no guarantee he even possesses a Lucas Mill?  

Sounds like you have realised the risk but many many people do not.

I am told this stem is now spoken for.  I hope some beautiful items  are made from it.

I was today offered what sounds like a really good Walnut stem.  I would have jumped at the chance but it is way too far from me even for a nice Walnut.  Single stem 15 ft long and 3ft diameter with very little taper.

The tree surgeon who offered it to me seemed really nice and said access is good.  If you are interested PM me and I will pass you his phone number tomorrow when I am back in work.  I have not seen the log so bear in mind I am only going on what the tree surgeon told me.

You need to find out the species, but whatever the species it will make good firewood when processed and dried. 

You could post a few pics on this thread you will soon get views on species.

7 hours ago, Johnsond said:

Hi All 

ive a colleague whom has been asked to remove a number of greenheart piles from an old jetty. Basically they will be cleared to 1m below bed level then cut. Old school way was with a diver with an air powered saws as per pic but health and safety nowadays tends to not like such bits of kit. My query is are there shears out there that could deal with 14 inch square greenheart ?? And if so could they be crane deployed on a rigging bridle to be positioned on the pile ?? 

Just throwing this out there guys for some opinions 

Cheers 

Without really knowing isn’t this a job for a firm who specialise in underwater work?  There must be divers who specialise in all sorts of underwater challenges.  Surely a competent diver trained to use the air saw is the simplest way? And if need be airbags can help bring the piling to the surface so in some ways much safer than normal tree felling.

I have a feeling the value of the beams will be far outweighed by the cost of the job.  Just as it is with trees above ground usually.

7 minutes ago, trigger_andy said:

I have a mate who wants to cut a Eucalyptus  in his garden down and have it Milled up. Its only 12 years old but already a fair diameter. Anyone milled it? Is it even worth the hassle?

I also have always understood it warps and splits lots.  Only seen it milled once - not pretty.

Thank you Nepia that is very helpful.

I have been offered a good few tons of Apple logs 8 feet long and roughly 6 inches diameter.  Anybody in need of a load before I mill them all up?

7 hours ago, openspaceman said:

It's a good rant but please correct me if I am wrong; isn't VAT the spawn of the common market? Prior to that we had various forms of purchase tax which were far more pragmatic as they were taxed at the point of production. In a global economy that favours large multinationals it must be easier to levy a tax on a few big companies rather than having to police every small producer.

Yes Openspaceman, you are correct, VAT started when we joined the EU.  The EU require all member states to levy VAT of at least 15% on most items.

2 hours ago, Rob D said:

There's a lot of extreme arguements going on here that are best seen a bit more shade of grey... I think we all know that we need to give a portion of our income as tax. We all need schools and healthcare.

 

But are there any facts and figures to show how large the gov has become year on year in terms of manpower etc? I can't find any by Google... Would it not be best to have simple plain rules that everyone understood and required less paperwork?

 

Someone said a tax on producers at source - that seems a much simpler way of calculating and gathering a VAT type tax? Then pretty much no one else has to deal with it but the producers? They already add VAT to imports - why not just leave it at that and collect that?

 

Is it just because the end price the consumer pays + vat nets more money than the import price/producer price + vat? Because that would not be worth the paperwork....... ah......... but it is if gov does not have to pay for that.

 

Got to be a simpler way of doing things. Got to be.

You are so right Rob our tax system is ludicrous.  Nonsensical.  Utterly unintelligible and so complicated even the experts often don't agree.

Here is my suggestion.  Scrap income tax and NI completely.  make up the shortfall by increasing VAT, but not evenly.  High value, luxury goods taxed higher with various different rates.  Maybe basic items 5% going up to expensive unnecessary luxuries 100% or even more.  I know you may not like that Rob (I also have to do regular VAT returns so I know the pain) but on the other hand think of the time it will save with PAYE and NI!  And imagine how much incentive there will be to do well for each individual to know they keep every penny they earn and they only pay tax when they buy stuff.  The only high tax payers would be high spenders - high tax payers by choice.

Another suggestion along very similar lines - scrap business rates.  Instead add a few percent to corporation tax to make up the loss.  Business rates are possibly the most ludicrous, unfair complicated and nonsensical tax of them all.  I am currently challenging the business rates assessment on one smallish building I occupy, and frankly it is a joke.  I was told by one solicitor who specialises in these matters that 40,000 appeals are being submitted each month currently - due to so many assessments being wrong.

As you say, of course we need to pay tax, but how did it ever come to this???????

3 minutes ago, Billhook said:

There are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics!

 

Conclusion

PM₁₀ and NO_x emission analysis for London shows that the majority of emissions originate from road transport and other forms of transport. In urban centres like London, only 3-4% of air quality emissions stem from “other fuels”, and it is unclear how much of the “other fuels” related emissions can be attributed to wood heating. Measurement programmes show that the emissions related to wood burning mainly originate from garden waste burning, patio wood burners, and “decorative or secondary heating source”; and government data show that most of the decorative/secondary heating sources in London are open fires.

I very much want to believe what you are quoting, I am a bit wary though as the Wood Heat Association are not exactly independent! 

Perhaps the discrepancy can be explained by the fact the research quoted by the Wood Heat Association is based on data collected in 2009 to 2011.  Maybe this is before much of the current boom period in woodburner use.

34 minutes ago, Billhook said:

Perfect, thanks for that.

So transport 50%  wood heat 3% about what I suspected

Mmmm well the governement are using a figure of 38% and say the research shows domestic heating is the biggest pollutor of fine particulate matter (PM2.5).  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/clean-air-strategy-2019/clean-air-strategy-2019-executive-summary#chapter-6-action-to-reduce-emissions-at-home  If you follow the link, it is in the first paragraph in Chapter 6.

What is the truth?  Where do all these figures come from?  Maybe this needs to be looked into by fullfact.org?  Are the government totally barking up the wrong tree (won't be the first time) or is woodburning really a major problem?

1 hour ago, trigger_andy said:

Some pics would be nice.  Might convince to mill my Ash Butts. Out of interest have you ever quater sawn Ash? Is it worth it?

I will get some pics.  I never purposely quarter-saw Ash, but when milling logs of course you always end up with a few quarter-sawn boards.  They are the most boring ash boards - not like Oak or Alder where you get lovely medullary rays.  I suppose the boards would be more stable, but very uninteresting.

11 hours ago, trigger_andy said:

If you dont have a use for them its a lot of work for something that of no real use to you and of little value. Personally Id just log them up.  

 

Ive got for 40" Plus Ash Logs that Im debating if I'll bother slabbing or not? I just find Ash so boring to look at. 

Ash boring??????  Well I know what you mean but a lot depends on the log and it has very clear grain so the first few boards and the last few from a log can be stunners.  The middle ones may be a little plain.  I will see if I can take some photos of some gorgeous boards I have....might convert you!

1 hour ago, Paul in the woods said:

I've been thinning the young ash on our woodland and I've been wondering what the smallest diameter the remaining trees need to get to to be worth milling? Normally I would say they are far too small but with ash dieback looming I would like to mill some for future use.

Well it really depends what you are hoping to do with the timber.  A log as small as 6 or 8 inches can be usefully milled, but it won't help you much if you are after 9 inch wide boards!  

9 hours ago, scbk said:

When's retirement age? I know self employed guys in their 70s/80s. One guy is 90 this spring and still working.

You can retire whenever you wish, but state pension kicks in around 67 to 70 (depending on DOB).  And you can indeed start taking your state pension and still work.  Or indeed start taking a private pension and still work.  

If you delay your state pension it will be increased - not just by the amount all state pensions are increased yearly but enhanced above that by a fairly generous amount for each year you delay.  Ideal for someone who is fit and well and really does not want to stop work just because they have reached the age they can take their state pension.

1 minute ago, Stephen Blair said:

Nothing wrong with my maths, I know when I’m being taken for a ride.  My fund value will be around £130k when I’m 55, I guessed the £180k through rose tinted spectacles for when I was 65.  You are too quick to blame me for the math rather than question the people I invested in.

Sorry Stephen I wasn't blaming you, I just pointed out that if you have a fund of £180,000 you will get a lot more than the £1400 per year you stated.  If your fund is £180,000 and the fund manager only offers £1400 per year take the fund elsewhere - you have the right to take that fund to any annuity provider you like, and at age 65 you will get at least £6500 per year, increasing every year.  

Your pension provider of course may not have drawn to your attention the fact that you can shop around when you come to retire, but you certainly can.  In fact as another member said you now have a few other options if you do not fancy the annuity route.

2 hours ago, defender tipper said:

Hi All,

Can anyone explain how cordwood stacks are measured by forestry companies?

I have purchased a stack and has been sold by the M is this a solid cube? and what would you expect to get from say 20M

in the way of m3 log bags/loads?..Ta

I believe there are recognised methods of measuring stacks of cord.  But there will be many variables which will affect the accuracy of such estimates, like straightness of the logs, size of logs, consistency of length of logs and even how neatly stacked they are.

At a very very rough guess I would say each cubic metre of cord will probably give a little over one cubic metre of loose logs maybe more if they are straight clean logs stacked well.