openspaceman

Personally I've no problem with rewilding but my point was that any charge for the licence for a commercial undertaking to use the public facility should only be in relation to the additional cost they cause the LA. Most of this locally seems to relate to commercial dog walkers often with many dogs, it's something I cannot understand as walking my daughter's dog is one of my few pleasures and , to me, part of the responsibility for having a dog. I never thought I would accept "poo bagging" but now it seems normal to me but I don't worry too much if he dumps off the beaten track. There's no way someone with several dogs bothers and as they all arrive in vans they mostly dump within 200m of the car park

Probably not but our one has a penchant for imaginative accounting

I think it's necessary to only charge a rate that is commensurate with the business share of the cost of using the publicly funded area, any more would be a tax purely to benefit the councils' coffers. In a public park there are costs associated with grass cutting, leaf collection, path maintenance, litter picking car parking etc. What costs are involved in running a beach?

Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace a junket paid for by developers with costs passed on as increased house prices for the benefit of assorted carpet baggers in the local authority and community groups. The idea was to fund the provision of land where inter urban sites were developed and could have been very useful to provide new opportunities in the public rights or way and open land by contracting with local farm and woodland owners but it got hijacked and tory councils were allowed to interpret the provision of suitable alternative as cramming a quart of new facilities into an existing pint pot, thus destroying two openspaces in one go.

Yes I'm out of date apparently it has been considered a conifer since 2003, I learned it was a taxad from my first boss way back.

I would class the above as quiet enjoyment whereas I would not put motor racing or pop concerts in that group. Having had some unfortunate experiences in this area I would say the commons that still have commoners are better protected from abuse. In my area those commons that went to councils and private charity are being most abused. In fact the M25 runs through a common and is still registered common land yet the owner of the land (Highways Agency) have never made available alternate exchange land. Indeed much of the rest of the common is council owned and whilst for now open to the public is not protected, the very reason the LA did not register it. I can talk long and hard about the wrong doings of wildlife trusts and Natural England since they became a castrated version of the countryside commission and the new green welly booted professional conservationists eschewed all the past practices of land husbandry in favour of quick fixes. Some on this forum will have benefited from their naivety. Please don't misunderstand me, I understand that enclosure and the move away from mediaeval agronomic practices was a necessary part of progress via a capitalist economy but now we are in a mature economy I think we should preserve public rights to what remains. In this vein it is the public rights for air and recreation on your doorstep that means a lot and it is that that is being steadily eroded with SANGs being created on land already public openspace in order to "manage" how people access it and vast sums being spent on management and resources to effectively urbanise what was undeveloped open space.

So do I but mostly I'd prefer that public open spaces were not used for such things but rather for quiet enjoyment. As an aside many pieces of common land which were acquired when local authorities took on the manorial wastes have were not registered and thus the protection offered them were lost so people cannot benefit from the various commons acts which granted them the right to air and exercise. There we will differ, I think in principal commercial users should pay but I can see a policing cost and difficulty as Kevin points out. A system of licensing creates a black market which we have seen in things like milk quotas. Read the "tragedy of the commons" which demonstrates the problems of unregulated shared use an how it never benefits a common user to restrain their use of a resource to the detriment of the many.

It's a taxad so not conifer, lovely firewood and I wanted to try it for parquet flooring

Ornry cherry laurel, P laurocerasus

Yes this is what scuppers the idea for anyone taking the trailer test after 13, it's the plated weight of the trailer has to be 5000kg, still a good plan for anyone having a trailer entitlement over 750kg before that if they have a 3tonne lump to move.

Well a heat pump still costs to run so if you are dumping the warm moist air at a high enought temperature to run underfloor heating, say 40C why not go direct, there's far more heat in the exhaust than can be recirculated to the incoming air.

This is why I abandoned the idea before, so the plated weight of the trailer will need to be 5000kg, even though only 4 tonnes on the axles, in which case a post 13 licence can never use it. What threw me was your saying the drawbar nose weight was never checked for over loading if all the axle weights were okay.

That's right for the post 13 trailer test but there was that interesting letter from VOSA that says the actual gross weight of the trailer would be the deciding factor rather than its MAM so as long as that is only carrying2.5 tonnes it passes. Of course anyone driving with a pre 13 trailer licence has an unlimited trailer weight so something like a LR110 can take the 1 tonne superimposed load and the trailer can have 4 tonnes on it's axles. I don't know what other 3.5 tonne MAM vehicles are rated for a trailer over 3.5 tonnes with braking off the service brake.

Just returning here for a bit, in fact the weight on the back axle would exceed the100kg because of the leverage with the fulcrum being the rear axle. Anyway when I was at work over 15months ago I discounted this B+E mini artic because I thought the post 2013 +E test scuppered it as the trailer would exceed 3500kg. With most of our workers having only B post 97 it made it too big a step up, if you are right then whilst I think Donnk has got his weights wrong the principle is right. For the sake of the trailer test, which guys really need anyway, then a lightweight tug with a 1 tonne payload, able to tow a 5 tonne trailer with 3500kg on its axles does give a useful increase and as long as the trailer tare is less than 1024kg no operator's licence required.

Lay a tarpaulin on the floor and up over the back of the chip, then pull it over the top so it rolls out.

I hope none of the neighbours took a photo of me retrieving a plastic bag from the apple tree today with no harness http://www.facelift.co.uk/news/scaffolder-could-face-jail-after-being-photographed-60ft-up-wearing-a-harness-that-wasnt-attached-to-anything?utm_source=HighTimes+Newsletter&utm_campaign=a5594b62f7-HighTimes_February18&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0a04bd58ec-a5594b62f7-182706821

That's why many relays have a snubber diode across the coil, if it doesn't maybe worth fitting one they only cost pennies.

That's what I thought but 'phoned the Dutch company and they said it would need to go through some sort of type approval

I think this is the same arrangement as a Dutch firm I looked at for my old job where we had a carlton 7018 to move around. I liked it because the coupling could be covered to make the grafter a flatbed when not towing. At the time the coupling was not homologated for UK. Thanks for that.

I've never fully understood how the superimposed weight was interpreted in relation to the trailer weight but had guessed the 3.5 tonnes limit for a trailer with the post 13 BE meant the weight of the trailer in isolation from the tow vehicle. Just for instnce how would you consider a traditional trailer with 1750kg on each axle and 100kg nose weight? yes but only on a pre 2013 BE ??

I don't think they made them other than in 2004 plus there's a bit of problem that whilst we oldies could drive one anyone post 97 would have to go full C or C1 plus E as the later B+E won't cover the trailer. So a person with post 97 is probably better getting the +E to manage with a GTW of 3.5 plus 3.5 trailer. Next step is C +E as it doen't seem worth going C1+E, I've just lashed out £1800 to get a young lady through this I'll have to see how she gets on

Yes this makes sense but what's the unladen weight of an iveco downplated from 5.5 to the 5.35 necessary to keep the GTW below 8.25? It would need to be 2.35. Of course there is some scope for putting the buckets and ramps on the trailer to reduce the weight of the digger on the truck. In fact we weighed our mk2 safetrak all filled and ready to run at 1.9 tonnes IIRC so it's the ifor tipper trailer that puts the towed weight up to 2.9, We reckoned the safetrak on our 8x4 trailers were just about legal to tow with a transit mk7 at 2.5 tonnes.

Yes but we have been through this before, it's unlikely to find a 3.5 tonne vehicle that can tow 4.75 tonnes and then towing 2.9 tonnes the op asked for means you have no payload on the truck

C1+E without the 107 restriction (which most of us got and restricts us to a gross train weight of 8,25 tonnes) allows GTW of 12tonnes. So to tow 2.9 tonnes I would need a truck with gross weight (Maximum Allowed Mass) of 5.35 tonnes

Chalgravesteve isn't looking at the whole system, now it won't be applicable to most applications but you're getting there. With wood burners you cannot cool the flue below about 110C without creating problems, but if you have a high temperature recirculating kiln then your flue gases have also to be hotter as there has to be a temperature drop from the boiler to the kiln. So there is usable heat after the flue leaves the boiler but it's low grade heat. If the kiln is operating at high temperature and there is no heat recuperation between the kiln exhaust and the fresh air replacing it then there is also a lot of low grade heat in the now saturated exhaust at kiln temperature. Hertswood's scheme is even better because the flare from the charcoal making is around the same temperature as burning wood outright so running a pyrolysis unit in series with a drying kiln and then a use for low grade heat e.g. underfloor heating slab makes good use of all the heat and saves the complication of recycling kiln heat. The challenge is to do it all cheaply enough to justify the fuel saving.