bolthole

Couldn't really be safer if you re-pollarded it...

Or just go around there. I mean, if you're thinking of buying the place....

So... isn't this down to what's 'reasonable'? The neighbour is parking his prized vehicle under a tree - isn't it reasonable for him to expect that leaves/fruit/nuts/pollen/sap will fall from the tree onto his vehicle? Maybe the odd small twig? Hasn't he accepted that this will happen by parking his vehicle where it is, assuming there's no negligence involved as regards any adjacent tree. If damage occurs because something 'unreasonable' happened, usually a large failure resulting in a non-trivial loss then there is scope for the owner of the tree to be liable but only if it can be demonstrated if this was in some way due to the tree owners negligence. So, if the owner of the tree can demonstrate that they have fulfilled their duty of care (which it seems they can apparently) surely Mr Camper van has no complaint. We wouldn't expect Mr Cv to seek redress for atmospheric oxygen causing rust to his vehicle, or water on the roads, becuae that would be 'unreasonable'. We would expect him to seek redress for damage caused by a pothole because it's the LAs duty of care to maintain the roads. A pothole present that caused damage when driven over at a legal (reasonable speed) would be beyond what we'd reasonably expect to find and the LA would be liable, having failed in their duty of care. They could still wriggle off the hook if they could prove show that they'd acted 'reasonably'... so if the pothole emerged under some sort of exceptional circumstances beyond their 'reasonable' control. Similarly, if the tree fell on his Campervan (heaven forbid!) but there was no reasonable way for the owner of the tree to forsee that this would happen, and this could be sucessfully argued in court, there would be no liability. Simply put, the presence of a tree, just being a tree, is not grounds for Mr Cv to have a legal complaint against the tree owner. Can anyone reasonably argue that I'm wrong?

Me too... I find sharpening on site a complete pain in the backside. Always seem to have got nicely into the swing of a job when I have stop to sharpen. Just take loads of spare chains and sharpen in the warm workshop, in the vice at comfortable height with a beer to hand.

Navmii on my iPhone. It's free. It's the reason I got interested in smart phones in the first place. Was going to buy a new GPS but my mate was using it while giving me a lift somewhere. It's just as good as my old Tomtom. It does the traffic thing for free too. Or use google maps with Siri. Ask it to give you directions to somewhere and it (mostly) just does it. Dead handy. I've got a holder thing for the car and a lighter socket charger lead. If you've got a smart phone, there's no need to buy a Satnav.

That's really poor. I know it's slightly different, but you could do £80/day dragging brash.

Hello! Have a look at the RHS website - there's a wealth of useful information here. https://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profile?pid=549#section-2 - this page should apply to you. It shouldn't matter that it's variegated. If the size of the tree means you'll be able to do it yourself then this should be helpful. Note that the RHS say that no routine pruning is necessary, so unless you have a specific reason you don't need to do it. Be aware that, if you decide to keep it a certain size or shape (topiary style) you'll need to keep doing this every year and it will get bigger very gradually. Strictly speaking you should also avoid pruning during the bird nesting season. Hope that helps.

As you replace your saws, start to buy battery ones?

We've got one in our garden and another one somewhere in the village. They're obviously not native, but sound emminently suitable for the location and won't stand out as much as you might think - after all they shed their needles in the winter. They're nice-looking trees.

It's a question of dosage David. The other risk is exposure in close proximity which will cause heating internally of the body's tissues - RF Burns. One needs to be close to a radiating element to feel this effect, depending on the power output, but it can be very serious and is a large part of the training given to riggers (those who climb and rig RF masts, towers and installations). Power falls off quickly as a function of distance. In addition most radiating antenna do not radiate omnidirectionally but to a greater or lesser extent focus their RF. This type of hazzard is well understood and documented, but in addition there's a lot of somewhat irrational public fear which emerged when the press got hold of this subject in relation to mobile 'phones. There is some weight behind these concerns as there are a lot of financial interest behind mobile telecomms but ultimately not anywhere near to the extent that the press may have made us feel. Generally, there is a hazzard here but it's not poorly understood and because of the ubiquity of RF devices in our environment, if there was a 'secret' chronic risk to us or our environment it would be more obviously evident by now. In relation to trees, particularly the one shown, if harm was caused in such a way that would injure someone undertaking a reduction, there would most likely be some damage to the tree obvious - the tree is exposed to the Rf 24/7. There is no need to bury and material cut from a tree like the one shown in a lead lined vault under a mountain! Search t'internet for 'RF hazzard' - it's all there.

+1

Hi Paul, Have a look at this web page - it's a bit of a ballache, but if you only watch catch-up services (like iPlayer) you don't need a TV licence. Official TV Licensing website - Live TV and how you watch it This is what we do and we quite legally don't have a licence. The BBC might change this soon but hey... whatever. The bloke with a clipboard sounds dodgy. I'd chase him. I'm sure you did... "Let me in to validate this" Paul.

Seem to remember that I was told that Redwoods 'never blow down, but the tops snap out'. I guess, if this is true, 'topping' it may, in this case, actually be an appropriate way to address the customers concerns. Can anyone else comment on this (alleged) natural failure mode?

Don't even attempt it unless you have crampons and an ice axe and know how to use them... unless it's clear of snow and ice in which case crack on! Been ages since I was up that way, but several of the outdoor kit shops in Betwys-y-coed will have a weather board showing conditions up high. It's well worth checking on the way through. Be careful and don't take any unnecessary risks. Conditions are particularly unforgiving at this time of year.

Cheers All, Ste - I like the look of Brightwells. Nice road trip down the borders too. Might have a look in the new year - too much ebay is making my head spin!

Hi all, Does anyone know where the utility companies auction off (or otherwise sell) all their trucks? Seems like quite a few dealers sell them, but obviously it makes sense to buy them from their source. Anyone know, or is this one of those well kept motor-industry secrets the the likes of us shall never find out?! Cheers...

This has completely caught me out on a number of occasions. You're not alone!....

I might be mistaken, but it seems like a lot of the confusion about this issue is based on the (understandable) idea that statutory bodies shouldn't in some cases (?) be allowed to influence (ultimately with legal sanction) what a landowner does with their land. If I'm not being too obvious, let me just say that this is definitely not the case; I have a friend who owns land. He built a house on it and one day English Heritage turned up and (to cut a long story short) put a lot of restrictions on what he could do with his land. There's apparently quite a bit of archeology on the site... and the form of the land (ridges and butts?) had to be preserved to the extent that they made him grub up quite a few trees and he's limited as to how many horses he can keep on the land, despite the site being used as a dairy farm previously. According to him, they weren't particularly diplomatic about it. Also... I've been looking at buying a property with woodland which is on an SSSI. The controlling body, with whom I've been consulting, have told me they wouldn't approve my proposed use of the land (continuous cover forestry and other eco tomfoolery!) - they want the existing softwood plantation removed and to see it revert back to it's previous state. That is unfortunately that and I'll not be buying the place. At the end of the day I understand where they're coming from and while it irks me, it is only my own personal ambitions that have been thwarted. I suppose what I'm saying is that, even though people don't like it, the law is there for a purpose, and it can be enforced. But... In the case of the original poster, because the harm is not gross and is only 'potential' (it's soil compaction and potential bark damage presumaby, as opposed to say running multiple trenches through the root zone) the LA may not feel that they can bring a case with any confidence because the damage is only 'likely' and with a clever barrister, the landowner could get the case kicked out. Possibly they feel that there is not yet an actual case to bring. If the new land use does damage the trees, then the LA could bring a case with more confidence but still lose against a clever barrister. If they chose this less 'heavy-handed' seeming approach, their inaction may actually allow the trees to be harmed. It is the LAs statutory duty to enforce TPOs but clearly it's just rather difficult for them to do this without upsetting people. It doesn't actually matter either if the landowner is unaware of an offence, although it would be a very poor state of affairs if the LA allowed it to get to court without some sort of communication. In a weird sort of a way, the LA are doing the right thing if they communicate their misgivings about the new land use to the landowner, and remind the said landowner that it's an issue of law and not just one of tree-hugging! If it was you, what would you rather? See the whole thing is a minefield for everybody. The landowner feels put upon... the LA has it's statutory duty to perform, whilst trying not to spunk too much of the taxpayers money away... people on Forums get airiated... but at the end of the day this bit of the law is to try and protect our landscape and trees which have maybe taken hundreds of years to grow, but can potentially be lost in an afternoon or over a few of years. I live in a village where it seems that developers seem to have been able to ride roughshod over planning and some of the legislation that TOs might be likely to enforce so to be honest it heartens me to hear of a council actually doing something to protect our landscape. I think it's inevitable that they might not get any thanks, except from the trees... which won't happen... because they're trees.

Whenever an organisation like this undertakes a 'campaign' there's always a certain use of language which in it's efforts to garner support, somewhat misses the point. I think the point's been well made on here about the causes of the disease; I think we'd be better off putting more effort into a long term solution (like creating and managing a lot more native woodland) rather than going along with the notion that one is somehow helping by 'clicking' and 'getting involved online'. Admittedly I am pretty jaded by the whole involvment of marketing and advertsing people.

Read the comments section. (sigh!)

I can see that going horribly wrong with someone cutting something far too big off. Impressive though...

Thanks for the comments guys. I think I'll probably go down the whole 4x4 pick up route. Need the carrying capacity and towing ability and the low-range box... Has anyone had any joy with re-mapping (or tuning boxes) specifically for economy?

This is probably a no-brainer... Just looking at replacing my wee van (Vauxhall Combo) with a 4wd work truck. Been looking at pick ups, Ford Ranger, etc... Trouble is, a lot of the time I'll be using the truck to do other things; need to go down to London once a month, plus have a property and elderly parents I need to keep an eye on about 40 miles away. Will be clocking up significant motorway miles. Just now this is fine as the van gives me about 50mpg. Obviously a pick up will be nearer 30mpg. Has anyone successfully used 'soft-roaders' as their work truck? Have been looking at ex-utility Mitsubishi Outlanders as a compromise. At the moment I'm subbing as a groundie so anticipate having to access sites off road, tow my own single-axle trailer or CS100 and possibly slightly larger stuff like hired chippers, other trailers. Are they up to the job off-road wise? Would a decent set of off-road tyres make any difference? What do you all think? Ha

Perhaps not applicable for work, but worth knowing about. Made to Measure Boot Fitting at the Alt-Berg Factory Really fantastic boots.