Gary Prentice

Jules, I'm probably taking this out of context, but are you saying that where a raised foundation, with a void, is used that gas exchange is hindered? To a detrimental extent? At the moment, I'm looking at propriety irrigation methods, utilising rainwater off of the roof. Tick one box. I hadn't considered replenishment of nutrients, but most of the trees that I'm involved with in the far from natural urban environment lack that anyway. I can't remember reading any literature, at all, about gaseous exchange under voids, or the tolerances of different species. I wonder if species that tolerate temporary flooding are more tolerant to continuing low oxygen/high CO2 levels

I hope he pulls through. Not trying to make light of the subject, but that is so unlucky to be just there when it failed.

I don't know if it's just the knowledge that Andy and David have, or the delivery of it, that creates such a good learning environment. I did something else a few years ago, purely on a correspondence course, which didn't work for me at all. It came across as far less structured and I struggled to come to terms with what I had to research, learn and understand.

It can't be a balls up, Cornwall has a whole department tasked with sustainable development... It says so on their website

There was an app?

And there was i trying to find your neutral representation to the application? Where did that go? some similarly well protected trees in Manchester I passed today

Wonder if you'll be of the same attitude when you reach 70

Cos if you read through the thread Steve will tell you that the app isn't compatible and may or will be re-developed

Yes you can! Until you turn off your notifications...... Don't anyone tell him how to!

and now you've got another one........ You can annoy people all night with one click of a button

Try changing your toothpaste

Thanks Jules, I'll need some time to consider all of this. There's some other elements or considerations that I can't reveal in the circumstances, which are the reason the client does or doesn't want to do certain things. I have some questions in response, but I'll post them later gary

Often? If, as in this situation, it is a case, that this can be demonstrated (subject to the the AMS), what can be reasonably demanded? I've had an informal discussion with the TO as to the requirements to the methodology and references to case studies and scientific literature. If he's happy, isn't he the one telling the case officer (who isn't a 'tree person) what is or isn't acceptable? Or do the planning officers feel that they know more than the arb officers, or require more? ATM my client is asking me to go directly to the case officer, to meet and explain things. I'm uncomfortable with this because although I'm comfortable in my own knowledge I don't hink think the architect and civil engineer have any real grasp about trees or tree root development.

I think that the scientific community have proven that old people struggle to adapt to new technology............ Just saying like

Speak for yourself!!!! It's been nice while Joe and Mark were struggling to come to terms with the new site

Hi Edward. In this particular situation, I don't think it is a case that it can't be done without harm to the tree, or by permission, or whatever. My question (lack of understanding) is more about the inequality about other applications, by other case officers, with far less requirements for details being validated and consented - and then this case officer wants the my client to spend thousands of pounds in an attempt to achieve the same goal. Theoretically, subject to the AMS explaining/demonstrating how the piling can be done within the RPA, working with the CE to redesign a beam if necessary because a significant root over 25mm dia. is come across seems reasonable. The case officer is asking that every pile position is illustrated pre-app, which would mean demolishing the existing structure, removing the existing footings and concrete raft ( to a AMS) and then undertaking an extensive and expensive root spread survey to design the foundation! Does this really seem reasonable? I appreciate your point of view, I've seen it where levels don't add up, mistakes have been made by the surveyor or the planning department, shit happens! But this case is fairly straightforward - the RPA incursion is less than twenty-five percent, if the endorsed BS5837 calculation is used, and we're talking about a 100% piled foundation because there are so many rooting restrictions surrounding the tree that I can't, honestly, begin to assume where the roots are. WE're trying to demonstrate that we are considering where the roots may be but in this case it's starting to feel that the demands are unreasonable. All I really asking for is a level playing field, what is reasonable? Based on previous applications, what do I tell my client? At the moment, I don't even feel that I know where the playing field is! Being new to this part of the industry, what do I do? Do I speak with the case officer, Am I speaking out of turn or what?

Thanks Paul. I'm inexperienced in this and have some history with the client, who is now coming to me as the only person who appears to her to be making sense. I'm being asked to mediate between the CE, architect and planning and am getting a bit uncomfortable talking/helping/advising outside of my field of expertise.

Well, it's a new layout which is taking a bit of getting used to, but there's some features (I'm sure there's more I haven't found or needed yet) that have brought a lot of improvements. I liked to old one, I was used to it, but some parts were a pain and hard work. I know nothing about running a site like this (thankfully) so if Steve says it had to change, it had to change. I'm just grateful that someone else takes the time and effort to do it

Second that, I'm trying to print this to take to work in the morning as a bit of a wake-up call to the complacency that comes with familiarity.

Rather than start a new thread.... Are the leg loop buckles replaceable on these? One of ours seems to have a problem and opened in use. On the back are a couple of screws, so I wondered if we could just swop it out, the harness is in good condition otherwise and only about 18 months old. If they're not, they're not and I'll order a new harness.

Glad to hear that, I thought it was only me. Couldn't work out where to type the text for a new post or a reply in the glitch thread. Being clever< I thought I'd PM you. Couldn't do that either

Working with a client who is trying to get planning consent where part of the foundation is within the RPA of a TPO'd tree. Currently there is a structure with a similar footprint as the proposal, built on a concrete raft. Prior to this structure being built (around 2009) there was a lightweight garage with concrete raft foundation and a brick-built shed. I've discussed this with the TO, who has agreed that a AMS detailing how a piled/suspended ringbeam with airspace and irrigation could be acceptable. I've also spoken to a retired senior planner who reckons that detailed drawings of the pile positions/beam construction wouldn't be required in the application, but would be a matter for building control. I've also read through the T&CPA, NPPF and the authorities local requirements, regarding what are reasonable requests for information, but the case officer appears to require detailed construction drawings from the civil engineer! I've pointed the client to a recent consented application, which was very close to TPO'd trees, where the applicant submitted a one page PDF for a propriety construction 'House-raft' , which seemed 'good enough'. That application had no tree survey, AMS or AIArequirement at all? The CE wants £1200 + Vat for the drawing, after I've accurately identified where all the tree roots are (underneath the existing structure) Is the case officer being unreasonable in her demands?

I'm getting that, when I'm signing in on a different device. But if you select the home button, maybe others too, it redirects

Easy access for the unimog? (where's the smilies kept?)

One of our rotties is, should I say a little less than athletic, and I keep looking at ramps because although he'll jump out (after being helped in) I don't think it does his joints any good. What's putting me off the ramps is the folded length and I wouldn't want it in the pickup bed sliding around with the dogs. If it goes on the back seat, no room for anyone else!