Gary Prentice

Are bees a protected species? Lots of conflicting information online.

Found this mallard 🦆 around the back of an ash I was looking at today

I print out an awful lot, then highlight the bits that are important. Sometimes do that on the pdf, but tend to find I'm opening a dozen doc.s to find what I want again. I should be writing some notes, directing myself to the specific documents as I go along, but I don't:blushing:

Savant-skilz, getting the population to vote for him?

Tree Roots in the built environment (TRIBE) and Research for amenity tree series (RfATs) Sorry, my bad:blushing: Eight hrs of reading RINs (Research Information Notes) BRE's (Building Research Establishment Digests), APNs (Arb Practice Notes) and numerous T&F downloads from the AJ (Taylor & Francis Arboricultural Journal) I'm relegated to abbrev' everything and a gibbering wreck.....

I haven't asked on UKTC, I'll do that tomorrow. I think that the pertinant information I'm after may even be in TRIBE, but my copy is in the lowest box in the garage. Each box is clear plastic, I can see it - all the other RfAT series are in the top box:sneaky2: Each box is a two man lift, so that'll have to wait til tomorrow:thumbdown: cos I'm not unpacking every box to move it.

Sorry to derail, but has anyone a copy of Driscolls 'the influence of vegetation on the shrinking and swelling of clay soils in Britain' 1983 Available as a pay to view (£25 for 24 hrs) for a 34 yr old article which I really object to. It's referenced in Trees & Foundations - Paul McCombie, in relation to NHBC Water Demand categories and how this was compiled. Bit off a long shot, but?

I don't think really think you've understood the point I was trying to make. To explain in simple terms. A new(ish) company develop a machine, but due to presumed lack of R & D have some issues - Which they have acknowledged. Petzl, a very large, multinational and long established company which I presume undertake masses of R & D (Internally probably) release the Zigzag My point is that even large multi-nationals are sometimes lacking in getting it right first time. I'd ask if you honestly believe that Forst should simply replace every machine with a new one, but I have better things to do than continue this debate with you. See ya!

What assignment is it for

Sorry, called into work to have a look. I've only the user manual and a part no's pdf - not a worksjop one.

Might have a PDF at work, but not in til tuesday

Calm down, it'll be better after Brexit:thumbup:

Thought that was an average day in tree work, do you mean we've been doing it wrong?

This is an interesting site Pinus coulteri (Coulter pine) description - The Gymnosperm Database

Specsavers?

I'll sell you mine for £99.00 if you really want an original copy:biggrin: TBH, I've no idea, maybe they hope to catch the odd buyer who is un-knowledgeable about the second edition. I'd have thought that there was a very niche market for tree related literature, so much so that there wouldn't be much premium value in them. I've got an early Hartig, translated into English from the 1880's-90's for around £30. https://www.stellabooks.com/books/r-hartig/text-book-of-the-diseases-of-trees/1606800?selSortBy=srdd&page=1&route=category-2117 So probably not.

Out of interest, how was that conclusion reached? I'm assuming that building regs were complied with, but only for a single story and its associated loads? Did the build go ahead with underpinning?

Sorry Dan, my original response was in reply to the estates agents surveyors information about the water demand and rooting depth. I meet a lot of people whose surveyors have told them about trees! Personally, I don't give an opinion on surveying - not my area but many surveyors freely advise on the field of arboricultural! You can download a phone app from British Geographical Survey called iGeology, mark the position of the property and pay around £7.00 to get a report on hazards within 100m - BUT, this is reliant on the accuracy of the base geological maps and I'm told that they are acknowledged as inaccurate, or at least not accurate enough to rely on 100% To be honest, all the information you would like to have only starts to become available after the event, when cracks appear and the insurance loss adjustor becomes involved. That's when site investigations begin, after other causes can be disregarded (settlement, landslip, thermal change, drains etc) - walk over and desk surveys, trial pits, crack monitoring/level monitoring etc. Trial pits will provide foundation depths, soil samples to establish the soil type and Modified Plasticity Index of the soil (it's shrink swell potential), moisture content and presence of living tree roots. I wouldn't want you to make a decision to purchase based on advice from an internet forum, or from someone sat at a keyboard 200 miles away. I think that you may need to get professional paid for advice, an arb survey will say that the trees are close enough to cause subsidence (on a shrinkable soil) and should be either removed or maintained at the current size - but you have no control over that without resorting to the courts or solicitors.

They may have done, but it is still the basis for foundation depths in NHBC Chapter 4.2, the zones of influence for tree species and referred to in subsidence cases. Yes, it is flawed - limited statistical input in both numbers of cases and geographical distribution, but it's all we've got! No-one can accurately predict which tree will lead to subsidence or why one will and one wont in near identical circumstances, according to Giles Biddle/Martyn Dobson in their seminars, so I'm afraid that information is the best we have.

Lots of work has gone into trying to predict which trees will cause damage by extracting moisture. To be blunt, we can't. Giles Biddle along with the Arb Association (I think) did a load of computer modelling, developed programs and then reviewed their result against existing subsidence cases. They were only right around 50% of the time. So, does anyone really want to base their decision on the same odds as flipping a coin? Looking at what is known. The property is within the zone of influence of the trees - so on a shrinkable clay soil there is a potential for subsidence. There are cracks present, identified as settlement cracks by the surveyor (but the building is 60 years old - settlement cracks usually appear soon after the build) It's been claimed that although on a clay soil, it's not on a shrinkable clay. I assume there's been no actual site soil tests though? The house was built in the 1950's, pre-NHBC guidelines on foundation depths, and the foundation depths are currently unknown. So trees present, clay soil of unknown shrink/swell potential, unknown foundation depth! Personally, I'd be very careful and wanting to make a very informed decision going forward. We haven't had a serious subsidence event year for a long while - really dry summer/a low rainfall winter to replenish soil moisture deficits. Sorry I can't be more helpful.

A bit of information from Cutler & Richardson book, Tree Roots and Building, 1st Edition, based on the Kew Root Survey and on which the NHBC guidelines are based. The Water Demand Table is from NHBC Guideline, Chapter 4.2 (2017) PRINT SCREEN - MASTER COPY.doc

Sorry to hear this, Eggs, but you know this is the downside of pets. It's a small consolation when the time comes, but you know that you've given them a good life, the love and affection they crave and finally a pain free end without suffering. Try to enjoy the time that you've got left together All the best Gary

A 58in HD 📺 Steve.

So what's the definition of a nesting bird? Does the absence of eggs and/or young allow work to continue? I understood or assumed that even if the nest was under construction it counted?

Go straight to jail, do not pass 'GO', do not collect £200!