Gary Prentice

I think you'll find it depends on the definition of initially the police officer who attends, then the 'expert' from the RSPB/RSPCA who they seek guidance from. If there is no straight forward definition of a tree, how do you define 'disturbing' a bird? Are all birds the same? You can walk among ground and cliff nesting sea birds with no harm, but would another species abandon the nest?

I wouldn't be too concerned, in that I don't think a council run operation can be viable. After all, after paying to; hiring the vehicle, the chipper, saws and blowers from the LA, a figure for PL & EL insurance, a figure for training costs, the cost of the Tree Officer time quoting the job (he wouldn't be doing that in council time while assessing the TPO application now would he?) the cost of disposing of the arisings, staff wages, Income tax and NI payments for the crew (& TO while quoting), the clerical costs for the quote and invoice, the book-keeping, a proportion to pay sick pay/holiday pay pro-rata (Council employment/commercial employment) There isn't going to be much in the way of profit:thumbup:

We're just too nice:biggrin:

Why do people think this? Or do they? Wouldn't all customers expect to pay a painter for painting an extra door?

Maybe not quite that blunt:biggrin: We've had a rake of customers over the last few weeks that we've worked for many times before too cheaply. I put one job up 3x to what it was before:confused1: The customer rang to complain, so I explained the situation politely and said that I'd understand if he wanted to shop around. I know how the long the job takes and what we need to earn for that time - it's as simple as that. So far, everyone that I've had to do this with has accepted the increases, they know our work and are prepared to pay the cost. If they aren't, well, let someone else do it and join that oft talked about race to the bottom. If you start cheap and below the competition, that's where you'll stay.

I've had that a few times, the "why do you want to know?/what do you want to do?" response. I point blank refuse to provide that information! When a planing officer, or anyone for that matter, can point out the section of the T&CPA where I'm obliged to, I will. Until then....

As they should. Not naming names but 'a' local authority near me don't seem to think that the rules of the T&CPA (regarding advertising) are even applicable to trees:sneaky2: The same authority don't identify TPO trees online, because they say they get too many phone calls from irate customers (ratepayers) when people are working on them, thinking that the works being done illegally - so don't tell the general public which trees are protected:confused1: And, they removed all of the CA mapping off the planning website, no explanation as to why, and wonder why a) there's contraventions, and b) the department gets loads of enquiries about whether trees are protected:001_smile: and then claim that they are understaffed for the level of enquiries Sorry, I digress...

I think in an ideal world, all TPO apps and CA notifications would be available to view by all. I know that some LA's do advertise these online, but many don't - so how a person interested or effected by the proposal is meant to voice their opinions, I've no idea:sneaky2: Does anyone have any knowledge about the laws on monopolies and competition? The private sector are working at a disadvantage, for obvious reasons, in these situations and funding from the public purse in a commercial enterprise surely can't be legal?

No problem, I just thought I'd be unfair on them, as contributors to the site, to be recommended other places first.

Didn't take you long to get the measure of the membership, did it?:biggrin:

Have you tried the suppliers on here?

Does anyone observe a relationship between blade sharpness and the build up of debris?

My post wasn't meant to be critical OMTC, just my opinion of some of the shortfalls that are being publicly debated. I didn't reply because I thought it was harsh, just to put forward some possible reasons behind the problems. Petzl for example, who aren't a little company and have yrs of experience in R&D, have had terrible issues with the zigzag. One would expect a climbing aid to be bomb-proof before release I'm not that au fait with Jensons, so I can't comment (maybe I shouldn't have in the first place) but if that is the case I find it odd that they've got anything wrong:confused1:

There's more risk of heave if the house was built on ground that was already suffering from a soil moisture deficit due to the presence of existing trees. Once the trees are removed, the soil recovers to a hydrated state and swells. It's unlikely that these LCs are older than the property, which was built in the 1950's

To be fair, R & D is a bit easier when you've been building machines for a long time. I think Forst, as I understand it, is a young company who have developed machines without a proven track record and consequently issues are cropping up. But look at the giants of chainsaw manufacturing, Stihl and others have released some right dogs onto the market at times and often don't/won't admit that there's any issues until there's lots of consumers complaining. Forst, IMO and knowledge, have held their hands up when parts are under-engineered and inadequate, admitted responsibility and seem to bend over backward to get you up and earning again. I'll admit I like the ST6, but more than that I like the attitude that I've always received from them. The acknowledgement of the importance of the equipment to the user and the back up service goes a long way to creating brand loyalty.

And for the win:biggrin: http://www.rics.org/Global/RICS-Right-to-Light.pdf A right to light may be acquired by ‘anyone who has had uninterrupted use of something over someone else’s land for 20 years without consent, openly and without threat, and without interruption for more than a year.

It may do, I can't remember. I think the sticking point is that the act was written to prevent having light one day and not the next - figuratively, say by the erection of a hoarding or a new building. The difficulty with trees is they grow up slowly, with light levels reducing each year, so the 'uninterrupted' is actually a diminishing level of light over a period of time. Mynors states something along the lines of he believes that that act is unlikely ever to used successfully when the case revolves around trees IIRC Posted for the OP and not trying to inform the 'already informed'

Arguing? I thought that was encouraging debate:001_smile:

How very true! And, the foremost authorities on tree-related subsidence will honestly admit it.

It's been a while since I read that act, but I'm pretty sure that the plaintiff must have enjoyed the light for a considerable number of years to start with.

Got a link to a court case for this claim, that doesn't involve hedges?

:biggrin:353 days early

New PPE will soon become available to the industry, the Health and Safety Executive revealed today. In light of regular reported injuries involving entanglement with wood-chippers, incidents with watercourses and spinal/neck injuries after minor trips and falls, the Arboricultural Association in conjunction with the manufacturer will be demonstrating this new development at this years Arb Show. The equipment serves multiple functions; *Physically preventing contact with wood-chipper feed rollers with hands, feet and the head. * Full cut protection to the neck, wrists and ankles * Flotation device for use when working near water - two versions will be made available - The 'Southern' model that will automatically inflate when immersed in water and the 'Northern' Model that has a rip-cord that is user activated. *Providing neck support for climbers, in the event of a fall, reducing injury risk to a tolerable level Please note that the 'Southern Model' MUST not be used in the North. There is a severe risk of spontaneous activation due to the northern climate. Note that the Ankle Protection does not contain the floatation device USAGE The PPE will become mandatory next year, the date for MANDATORY USE is expected to be announced on 1st April 2018 It is rumoured that Mark Bolam will be demonstrating the trip and fall protection of the equipment whilst leaving the beer tent. Having observed our Product Testers attempt to pass through a doorway together, I can reliably attest to the equipment's ability to prevent passage through narrow openings, so I am personally convinced that this product will prevent contact with feed rollers by preventing access. I am informed that larger protective devices will soon be available for those working with the larger crane-fed type chippers. On Tuesday, 18th April AA Paul will be emailing a consultation document to all members, don't bother filling them in and returning them because the HSE have already decided this is going to happen - whether you lke it or not:001_tongue:

If it is, it's dearer in German.

There is another one, or it might be the same, it's in German though. It's an interesting subject that a couple of people on here are well into. http://urbanforestinnovations.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Pub-2.pdf Tree Consult