Gary Prentice

A hangover from when ropes were made from a lot lower melting point materials. But saying that even modern ropes will glaze with rope to rope contact under heavy loads/fast descents.

I really dislike seeing ropes running over one another like that.

Just to pose the other side of the coin, this forum is full of 'older' climbers (and groundsman) who have made it and are still doing it. I suspect that those who entered the industry later in life and fell by the wayside don't actually frequent arbtalk to say it's too bloody hard, don't attempt it! Years ago we had a fellow in for a day who thought that he might be interested in a career change, thirty odd, went to the gym and worked as a doorman part time. At the end of the day he admitted that it was the hardest days work of his life (it was a hard day, long drag and a steep garden - but you get days like that) Personally, I don't know if I'd advocate entering the industry later in life, it's easier than it used to be with the equipment and mechanical aids but compared to a lot of other trades it's underpaid and unappreciated. But if you enjoy it and it doesn't feel like you're getting up to go to work everyday, cart on and good luck. I've worked with a lot of more mature people and they do bring a hell of a lot of valuable skills & a mindset that are really handy.

I'll raise this with Dave Dowson next time we speak Jon. I think that I remember the conversation in the classroom, with someone even asking for the name of the speaker from, I assume, BGS. But I take your point. I generally start with the maps and then look for more confirmation from the nearby borehole records that may be available. Ultimately, you can't beat trial pits and lab testing to be sure (The oak on the front cover of Gile's book is prime example of the unknowns below ground level.) PS Stubby, I'm wrong again

Not at all, being married I accept that I’m wrong 100% of the time. If I admit my opinion is wrong half the time about Arb stuff I still feel like I’m winning!

Only once? You must have led a very sheltered life, I was a slow learner when I was younger.

Never seen it as most of my tree working life has been up north. Giles Biddle showed some photos of a property where heave was still occurring twenty/thirty years after the tree had been removed! Subsidence and heave are incredibly complex. Giles showed some level monitoring of a row of terraced houses with a row of pretty much identical planes to the front. Some houses were moving, some were not and he admitted no one could explain why. Like most tree related stuff, assumptions are made to the best of anyone’s ability based on observation, experience, local knowledge and available current best practice. And we’ll still be wrong every now and again.

We were told at college that the lecturer had questioned the accuracy of geological maps at a BGS/subsidence seminar, only to be informed that they may accurate to +/- 20 miles. Looking at something this evening and one side of the street is one soil type, the other another. Luckily both are low shrink/swell soil types so it's immaterial but if they were vastly different I wouldn't want to be making decisions based on a map.

Are you referring to England and English Appeal decisions?

Staged removals are considered as pretty pointless. If things are going to move, they're going to move.

But you know it isn't real? Yeah but I'm saying that nature is incredibly cruel, but I think that the things that you've mentioned are driven by instinct and the necessities of survival, they are baser instincts. Mankind, as a more evolved species makes choices, we don't meet a woman with children and consider killing hers that our own with her survive and are dominant. Most of don't go out and gang rape a women because she's obviously ovulating and wants/needs to breed. Saying that some people may not evolved as far as others and still appear to give in to their animal instincts.

I think you have to acknowledge things like that. Although in this case, it never went to ASBO so it remains an ‘agreement’ between the neighbours.

Confused! Tribal squabbling has already caused much of what you’re saying. Or do do you mean tribal squabbling amongst the chimps. I think their territorial disputes, even if one tribe had superior weaponry wouldn’t have such severe consequences. Primates are genenerally less evil than mankind. Not not sure about the chimp in the Whitehouse though

Digressing slightly, I've a client, a reasonable fellow who happens to be a solicitor. His bottom boundary is a cypress hedge of no more than about three metres. His neighbour built an extension, closer to the hedge and then started a dispute about the hedge height. I would have thought that the LA should have considered the trees and hedges as a material consideration in deciding the application to prevent the issue now. The owner reduced the height to the calculated actionable height, determined by the LA, to prevent enforcement but the neighbour sends letters annually to tell him it needs cutting threatening to involve the LA through the HH legislation. I suggested that the owner might have a claim back at the council because of their consent for the extension but he can't be bothered to go in that direction. My suggestion of planting some new LC's inside the hedge, but not close enough together to form a hedge, and allow them to grow to 30 m+ wasn't taken up either

What could possibly go wrong?

Can I call watercress FAKE NEWS, cos I don't like it?

"Problem I have is if you have a massive WRC trees/hedge which would likely kill it if you reduced it below 2m and if you can’t recommend removal you have no where to go." The LA can't determine an actionable height below 2 m, whether it would kill the hedge or not. (In English legislation anyway) Now that Jules knows you're in Scotland, he'll set you right, this is very much his forte I think there is lots of information available on his website IIRC

I had to read that twice!

Have you misread the legislation Andy? 24. Can the council order my neighbour to remove the hedge? The council cannot order your neighbour to: remove the hedge take any action that could result in the hedge’s death or destruction trim the hedge to a height less than 2 metres above ground level

Andy, Hopefully jules/Daltontrees will be along as he makes a living from this and is on the ball with the legislation. Our LA has never undertaken a case and I haven't been involved in one. I'm not sure where or what literature or guidance I've read, but I'm fairly confident that the underlying principle is that the owner cannot be deprived of the hedge - hence the minimum heights/higher heights if calculated heights would lead to loss. I don't know what you already know, so if I'm teaching grandmother to suck eggs - I apologise. The actionable height, i.e, the height that the LA tell the owner to reduce and maintain to is derived by calculation. The inputs for the calculation are derived from a number of things; orientation of hedge in relation to complainants property, whether habitable rooms are affected (bathrooms don't count), distance of hedge from property etc. Using these inputs a figure emerges to determine the actionable height. As I said, I don't think that it can be below 2 m. If it's higher, but in the arb officers opinion,a height that would lead to the death of the trees - then the arb officer may determine a height higher than the calculated actionable height. I will have something official to back this up (and I think my memory is correct in the above), but if someone (Jules) doesn't provide a definitive answer I'll find the information I've got at home and post it up.

From memory, the LA can’t specify below 2m in finished height or to a higher height that would likely result in its loss.

Most of the time Welcome to Arbtalk

The older I get, the more frequently I have to resort to the internet to find out who all these famous people are....

As Devontwig says, the liability/negligence aspect would fall to the owner (who'd probably chase the contractor) so it would be in the owners best interests to get the work done. The contractor might then pursue the owner for a breach of contract, but IMO would be unsuccessful and it's probably unlikely that any contract is so specific as to prevent emergency works by third parties if the need arises. If you're really concerned that there is imminent danger, the best you can do is to inform the owners that responsibility and blame would land at their door if a death or injury could have, 'reasonably' been prevented.

Is it really though? Looking at a black (can I say black?) child wearing that article of clothing, my first thought wasn't that there was any derogatory overtones. Maybe I should get offended on behalf of others more than I do. I will admit that I used the term 'call a spade a spade' the other evening, here on Arbtalk, then went and researched its origin because I was a little concerned that someone might take offence. Where does it end?