oslac

I put up a stilt house about ten years ago and its still as sturdy as it ever was. As mentioned insert 5-6m long treated round posts 100mm diam straight into the soil and about 0.7-1.0m deep. Pack well. Brace the 4 posts using 100x50mm treated spars at the height of the platform. Fix with coachbolts to create a sturdy structure which will then allow you to fix a platform to. After choosing a suitable location for the platform, use two pieces of treated marine grade plyboard or wood planking. Cut a circular hole (or what ever the shape the trunk is) 50-100 mm wider than the trunk to allow the trunk to expand. Fit platfom to posts and bracing. Don't attach anything to the tree and don't have any wood, planking etc rubbing against the tree. The tree house should come down as easily as it went up with no pain to the tree. You could also put a roof on the platform. Make sure you put a suitable rail around it as well. Check for planning permission and height of structures and proximity to boundaries. If this becomes problematic, don't put a roof on. Good luck

Either the works can be carried out under permitted development or a planning application is required. There is almost certainly no permitted development right associated with TPO trees other than dead, dying and dangerous wood. The TO is taking a massive gambol because a complaint to the ombudsman will almost certainly lead to some censure of the LPA. It matters because as with any planning application, the public have a right to object to the proposed tree work. This is how the planning system works. A TO does not have the legal power to circumvent planning law just because he wants to. It doesn't matter if the tree works appear trivial i.e. 'it's only a crown lift', that's not the point. What next, 'its just a small extension', 'its only a listed building but I am sure the modern double glazing is ok'. Whether the works would be permitted or not is not the point either. The TO is out of line and needs to be pulled up for his unproffessional approach.

Type 1 should not be used within the RPA of a retained tree. It contains fines and will create a non permeable surface. As mentioned already; within the RPA a cellweb or similar layer should be pinned down over a geotextile and infilled with non-fines material such as 20-40mm crushed stone. Lay geotextile over this and lay the wearing course. Retain edges with 50mm thick wood edging staked or railway sleepers pinned to the ground. All of the above must employ no-dig methodology. I don't have a copy of the latest BS with me (being Sunday and trying not to be too anal) but I think the BS limits the extent of any new surface (permeable or not) to 20% of the available RPA. I am very suprised . . . no I am not . . . that any council tree officer would allow Type 1 within the RPA or extend the car park area to more than 20% without requiring full methodology, however, this seems to be permitted development and all you need do is not damage any part of the protected tree and I doubt the council could prove that you have damaged the tree by surfacing the RPA with anything you like. .

Suggest you report your feelings on the matter at the next committee meeting. Provide a physical report setting out the issues which can then be minuted and recommend that the volunteer is put on latrine duties for the rest of his/her life.

You will need to establish if there is water present and at what depth. The deeper the water, the more expensive the borehole. Contact Baker Associates Hydro Solutions who are very good and friendly and will talk you through everything. They will carry out the hydological assessment for you. They will also put you in touch with the company who will set up the water pipe/storage/filter etc. You can have a system which pulls out water from the borehole, filters it, stores it and releases it to your house under pressure. I think you can take out 5 metre cube or more a day. Hope this helps

What's the problem with eating spider . . . lots of people do it . . but a lot of people find it disgusting.

I have had a similar situation recently when a neighbouring tree fell onto my client's garage and squashing two cars. The owner of the tree refused to have anything to do with the situation and my client had the tree removed before I could survey it, All that was left was some photos and a decayed stump which made gathering evidence for the insurance report difficult. I therefore suggest that you very carefully document everything. If there are any defects on the tree then take photographs. Retain any samples of decay and bracket fungus and document the state of the stump. Ideally, a full survety of the tree is needed. The insurance company for the person whose garage got squashed is likely to want to recoup the costs of the damage, tree removal etc from the tree's owner and will appreciate any evidence.

Surely it is the squirrels that are the nuisance, not the tree.

My understanding is that you must claim the land for a period of 12 years - uninterrupted and non-contested. After this time you may apply to register the land in your ownership. I also think that you will have needed to have enclosed the land to show that you have had sole control over the land for this period of time. The onus is on you to prove this and therefore records of occupation and enclosure is likely to be required.

I had this a few weeks back. The doctor said that shingles is nothing to do with stress as it can flare up at any time. He went on to say that you will only have shingles if you have previously had chicken pox as the chicken pox virus and shingle virus are the same thing. After chicken pox, the virus retreats to inaccessible places in the nervous system but every now and again, the virus comes out to play and spreads out along the nerve line. Thats why you get inflamation or spots in a line following the underlying nerves. Its unplesant but new drugs can normally sort it out in a week or so providing you start taking them within 48 hours of the first symptom. Leaving it any longer or quite often with old folk, the virus can hang around for months or even years and cause all sorts of pains and aches. As soon as you feel any symptom, get yourself off to the doctor.

I started this 5+2 diet about three months ago. I have lost one and half stone (14 1/2 down to 13 stone). I am aiming for 12 1/2 by easter and 12 by summer. For two days a week, I eat only 500-600 calories. Usually find bulky, filling and low calorie food but the remaining 5 days, I eat whatever I like; cake, sweets, you name it and I don't excersise, or not very much. What is interesting is that you (or I don't) over-eat on my non fasting days. In fact I actually eat less than I did before starting the regime. Its all about repairing your body cells and staving off high blood pressure, cancers, alzheimer's and cholesterol but the side effect is weight loss. For those who say they are happy being fat, then good luck to you but for most overweight people, you will be more prone to heart attack, stroke and a whole bunch of cancers. As they say; if you want to lose weight then less calories in and more calories out.

I think you are wrong Scotspine1. Your job is to tell the client your conclusion as to the risk of failure. This is going to be based on evidence, knowledge, experenced, education etc. As a seperate issue, you may wish to discuss management options and even try to allay your clien't emotional state but as someone giving professional advice, you must say it as it is. Your Client's fear of the tree failing has no bearing on the actual potential of the tree failing and the two must not be confused.

The NTSG website links to this document http://www.forestry.gov.uk/PDF/FCMS025.pdf/$FILE/FCMS025.pdf Common Sense Risk Management of Trees . . . No mention of QTRA there . . . Its all well and good using a bod to identify tree hazards, I guess they will be armed with a series of photographs showing potential defects and if one or more of these defects are found, reporting this to a more qualified arby who will carry out a further inspection. Lets hope the bod doesn't miss something whose target is over something precious like my son on his way to school, or me coming home from the pub. Carrying out many tree inspections per year would probably arm you with a certain instinct about trees and their potential for failure. I just don't think that QTRA is anything more than another expensive scheme to assess risk. I expect someone is very proud of their achievement and has been rewarded handsomly in financial terms and a massive ego boost . . . I wish I had thought of it first . . .

If a hazard assessment is being carried out for a local authority, I would expect a strategy to be agreed before-hand as to which trees require surveying and when based (probably) on the target area for each tree (zoning). This becomes objective in the field but the strategy should be carried out by an experienced and qualified arby and as such is based on that arby's experience and understanding. Deciding on the size of the potential failure (tree or branch) is reasonably simple and can be objective but obviously a 5cm diameter branch falling from two metres won't do half as much damage to your head as the same sized branch falling from 20 metres. So failure size is objective but potential to cause injury or damage is subjective. The risk of failure is, in my opinion, subjective and based on expertise and knowledge. The arby can be given pointers as to what to look out for but interpreting this knowledge correctly usually takes a lot of experience and and a lot of knowledge. So what I am trying to say is that anyone carrying out tree risk assessments should be very qualified and very experienced and have a system in place which is applied to all trees within the survey. If this system is QTRA then ok but there are other systems which are just as good and do not require buying a licence. All decision making is subjective and tree risk assessments are very subjective . . . don't hide behind QTRA at the expense of building up your knowledge and experience and if you have knowledge and experience, you probably won't need QTRA. Just a thought:001_smile:

The current thinking is that winter pruning removes the stored energy adjacent to buds which is used during leaf and flower burst. This means that energy must be transferred around the tree prior to growth starting in the spring and before the tree has the chance to build up its energy reserves via photosynthesis. This may lead to physiological stress in the tree resulting in a weakening of the tree's ability to defend it self against active pathogens. It is also thought that there are more air bourne pathogen spores floating around in the autumn and winter which can infect a dormant tree's newly cut branch and before the tree can use its available energy to defend itself. Chop a branch off and pathogen spores have a clear route into the tree. Pruning the tree in summer allows the tree to repair itself prior to dormancy and allows starch to be stored where the tree needs it i.e. behind the buds and ready for the spring.

If, inter alia, the tree is not protected by a TPO nor growing in a CA or no planning condition can be enforced, the trees can be felled pre planning submission. It may not be very ethical but since when have ethics got in the way of making money. If you were acting as the consultant and was asked the question . . What are my options? . . . would you keep quiet about the right to fell the trees or tell your client that they could legally fell the trees prior to submitting the planning ap. It happens all the time and in my opinion, now that developers, Architects etc have wisened up, will happen more and more. For a lot of developer's it is not worth the risk to go through planning and have some idiot tree officer recommend refusal on the basis that some crap tree is growing in the middle of the site. Also, in planning terms, there is no right to remove a tree (unless dead, hazardous etc) which means that a development could be refused because some rubbish tree has caught the fancy of a tree officer.

British Standards bought on line will have the purchaser's name printed along the edge of each page. This is to stop copyright infringement which is an offence. Although the document is grossly overpriced, you or anyone else need to make sure that your copy does not infringe copyright. You should however be allowed to copy a small part of the document without infringing copyright, 10% or one chapter, I think but check first. Try going to your library who will often have a licence for BS and will usually let you have it on a short loan. (They can print it there and then). Many university libraries allow BS download if they hold a licence.

Why not go on line, check out a conversion site and input your circumfrence measurements to get the diameter. Quick easy and accurate.

I think you have a few errors creeping in there. The trees cannot both be b's and then C1. They are either B or C. The DBH quoted is too great. That is diameter and the tree will not be 2.8m and 1.75m Are you confusing circumfrence with diameter. Even then, 1.75m, circumfrence for a birch appears mighty big. From the DBH, you can determine the RPA's and the impact the development is likely to have on the trees The BS sets out the need to allow room for future growth. You will need to decide what is more important, the new building or the retention of the trees bearing in mind that the trees appear to be pretty ropey as you have described than as fair condition C1. If you decide to retain the trees, what about their future management in relation to the development. If you decide to replace the trees and space allows, look at the character of the site and choose a replacement tree accordingly. I would be doubtful about replanting a sycamore but that is your choice.

If there are no TPO on the trees, the trees are not growing within a Conservation Area and no outstanding planning condition is current which requires you to gain the approval of the LPA before carrying out tree works, you do not need to contact the council. If they are asking for a form, you can ignore it. If the council want an easy ride, you may wish to let them know that you will be carrying out works but you are not obliged to.

I agree with Paul. Try and limit yourself to a single area. Temporary porous surfaces on development sites is a good one as is the use of crate systems and such adjacent to new tree planting areas or even no-dig construction of pathways and/or roadways. The underlying study will probably be the same for each. There is plenty of literature and research out there for each. If you get stuck, pm me for a reading list as I completed a disertation a while back on hard surfaces adjacent to retained trees on development sites.

Be aware that soil compaction is not just a surface thing. If you mean that soil compaction is the reduction of pore spaces between soil particles, then soil compaction can occur deeper in the soil if that soil is adjacent to roads or railway lines. Certain vibrations will consolodate soil at deeper levels. Cellweb and similar products are or appear to be good for the short term reduction surface compaction but I am not sure if there is any evidence that there are long term benefits. I have not come across any research that cellweb (et al) has any long or even short term beefits in shrub planting areas. I think the subject area is an excellent choice but you need to home in tighter as to what aspect of soil compaction and geotextile systems you want to look at. How many words to you need to write?

To be fair, I think that tree officers have a tough time of it. Slap a TPO on a tree and they are heavy handed, don't slap a TPO on a tree and some munchkin comes along and builds an extension on the tree's RPA or worse still, chops the tree down. I spend most of my working like acting as the middleman between tree officers and developers and although some tree officers are over zealous, they nearly always have the tree's best interest at heart whereas most developers (and that includes the little old man down the road who only wants to build a little extension to while away his time) don't give a flying fig about trees and the desire to build an extension or the need to make a profit comes first.

Permitted development rights do not overide TPO legislation. If a TPO tree or CA tree is wilfully damaged or destroyed, a criminal offence has been carried out irrespective of the desire to extend a property under permitted development. A tree growing in a rear garden has no bearing on TPO legislation. If the tree has amenity value or if it is expedient to serve a TPO, then a TPO may be served. For detached properties, the maximum extension appears to be 8m. Usually its not the building of the extension which causes damage to rear garden trees but the large terrace, retaining walls and steps which are constructed afterwards which cause problems.

It really depends on what you mean by surveying trees. A simple level 1 survey is something that anyone could do after a days training. Tree Warden level. Level two surveys should really be accompanied with some arboricultural qual at level 3 or 4. This will include BS 5837 surveys and hazard assessments. I quess this is where you want to pitch yourself. Level 3 surveys which include detailed surveys of trees should probably be accompanied with a level 6 qual (BSc or Prof Dip) and several years of experience. At this level, you should be able to understand and identify pests, disease, decay fungi and their stategies, bio-mechanics etc etc. and communicate this information succinctly within a report. I come across many tree reports from so-called arb consultants. A lot of what I come across is generally crap and lacking in specifics and detail. As a Chartered LA, and I would be interested to know how long ago you Chartered, you would be in an excellent position to understand the planning process and construction details in relation to trees and developent. I think though that you should not rush into tree reports unless you are working with someone more experienced who can give you a good grounding and much needed experience first.