Gary Prentice

No disagreement there. Freelance climber is a sub contractor, for tax, unless you pay paye. Should be stopping 20%otherwise Freelance climber is responsible for Loler'ing his own gear for H&S ie subbie Insurance? Would need to check if our insurance to see if it covers subbies. But if someone came Stumpgrinding I'd expect them to have their own.

That went a bit over my head..... Are you in agreement with what I'm saying?:confused1::confused1::confused1:

So you pay your freelance climbers sick pay, holiday pay, NI stamp and tax contributions? Do you provide their PPE, climbing equipment, MS201T's. are you responsible for Loler'ing their gear? If you do, I guess they're legally employees? The point I have been, unsuccessfully, trying to make is the difference in liabilities. A freelance climber, is his own entity, having his own legal responsibilities and liabilities. I've said a number of times, from what I've been previously informed, that there is the a liability in the eyes of the law. Whether a council would successfully prosecute is a different matter. I've been employed, freelanced as a climber, climbed for L.A's, run my own business and currently manage a smallish company over the last 30 years, so have picked up a little working knowledge. But, I'm always going, & willing to learn more.

To clarify; The planning officer, on the advice of the councils legal department, informed me that "Strictly speaking" etc, etc There is no relevence in whether or not anyone knows the owner of the tree. The protection is on the tree. To clarify further, your "staff" are your employees. A freelance climber is not an employee in a the legal definition. As I have already said, that particular councils legal department would have, at that period in time, looked to prosecute the main arb company. But put it another way. If a freelancer goes to work for a one man band/jobbing gardener with no knowledge of trees or law. Fells a tree for the gardner to burn or put on his trailer to the tip. Who do you think the councils going to chase? I'm not trying to be awkward with anyone, but obviously in a court of law , all the legal definitions of who did what, works for whom may be applied.

I can only repeat what a planning officer informed me, in that " strictly speaking" the liability would be mine. The climber is legally running his own business, providing a service of his climbing ability, to prune/fell the tree. Not knowing what tree he is going to work on, ie ignorance of the law, would be no excuse in the dock.

When I was working as a freelance climber, years back, a planning officer told me that strictly speaking the liability would be mine. Although generally the legal department would look to get main contractor to court. More so than even the owner, in that the Arb co. should be the more knowledgeable and aware of all the regulations. Obviously a large landowner or large building contractor would also be in the dock, less likely some OAP.

as pointed out 3 pages back......

Of course they did. And a Fortnum & masons hamper to compensate for the inconvenience.

If you are employed the onus is on the employer to check for restraints. However, if you work on a self employed basis and you are doing the sawing the responsibility is yours.

Anyone got a copy of this? the link seems to be no longer active.

A client had a neighbour with a Lombardy poplar on the boundary. It failed, taking out the boundary fence and falling across two other neighbouring gardens. The owner contacted his household insurance co. who asked what damage had occurred to their own property. That insurance company paid for the fence and removing the short length of trunk in their own garden only. The insurance company took the view that the rest of the tree, being on other property, after the event, was now the responsibility of others. This was about two years back, but I am aware of similar cases in the past. Whether the neighbouring owners own insurers claim back costs from the owners insurer I don't know. Don't flame me for this post, this is just what I've been told. The owners of the poplar were both solicitors, man & wife, who were both surprised at their insurers policy on this.

Apparently doesn't work on the/my kindle. Have to go to the computer... thanks

where' s the chat room?

They will be ok until long after the jobs been signed off and the main contractors been paid. Just to add to the list, new root growth may be compromised, due to the higher soil bulk density (dependant on soil particle size) in that the root tip cannot physically exert enough pressure to penetrate the soil. Hopefully the trees are protected and the TO can enforce all the soil remediation works available.

Tony, thanks for the positive I.D on the phytophthora. I came across SOIL INJECTIONS OF CARBOHYDRATES IMPROVE ROOT GROWTH OF ESTABLISHED URBAN TREES. Which I can't link for some reason

With all due respect, this thread has had some great input, answered my original question, been informative and led to some interesting avenues for future discussion. Could we please continue in this vein.

Hi Tony, I was kinda hoping you'd arrive in this thread. Strouts and Winters 'Diagnosis of Ill Health' classifies Leyland as intolerant (I think, I don't have it hand at the moment) but other sources I've read differ. I understand what you are saying though. The difficulty that arises is the more I read, the more questions arise. I've been offered soil sampling from another forum member, which I'm going to take up. My query would be, would nitrogen benefit the armillaria, if presently deficient and requring amendment? I sent a picture of the lime to our local T.O, who confirmed the phytophtora, but I would value your opinion. It's a very large file size and I can't post it. Would you mind if I emailed to you? Its evident at ground level, although I think the ground level has been raised. If I can talk the client into at least a meter radius of woodchip mulch I think it may be worth exposing the root collars. With regard to the sugar solution, I've read on here about its use after malicious tree poisonings and that Glyn Percival has advocated it but can't find a link. I'd assume that the first application would be just before buds start to break? Anyway, there appears to be a lot more options than I originally thought. The clients pretty amenable and loves her trees, which is also a good start. Thanks to everyone who has posted for the insight I've received

Tony, I don't know where you're based, but your pioneering species are the same here, although Hawthorn is to a lesser degree. Maybe they do well in the urban soil environment. I have noticed that buddlia (sp?) are becoming far more dominant around manchester, springing up in every nook and cranny. My interest/thoughts are along the lines that, with a continueing introduction of pathogens that our trees have not evolved with, what's going to happen in the future. I'm assuming this is occuring nationwide, but the numbers of trees in decline here is becoming staggering. Jules, yes, Treeseer's post was the answer I was seeking, although I seem to recollect what I had originally read was named after someone. Now all we have to do is spread the word

This is why Venturia became so damaging to our Manchester Poplar, all clones from one nursery in Blackley. I wasn't aware that Brighton had managed to retain any Elms. I know that they were one of the few areas to implement a sanitation felling policy. Have they survived due to a natural immunity or repeated fungicidal injections? Should have searched before posting question Elm Disease - Brighton & Hove City Council

:hmmmm2:HTC, seasons greetings. I stand corrected, I misunderstood the correlation between infection rates and mortality. I may be wrong, I often am, but aren't the Danish predicting that they will only retain as little as 10% of their Ash. Whether this is due simply to Chalara or opportunist successive secondary pathogens is unclear. I'm in agreement that Chalara will be a setback, the landscape will change and evolve, (Shigo's dynamic equilibrium) as it has with the elms. I have a theory, with the elms, that as the host trees numbers fell, the vectors population should have declined thereby slowing the rates of re-infection of new sucker/coppice growth. I also think that even minor changes in climate could have an affect on future spread, due to the beetles requirements with regard to temp., windspeed and humidity. Your thoughts on exotic trees are interesting, sure they will never become veteran native trees. But is that important? As time goes on, are all our flora and fauna going to be native? Globalization again suggests that more and more species will become naturalised here. It's always occurred to some degree but the rates increased. I started my craft in Cambridge, working on many mature 'exotics' in the universities and the old family estates. These will become veterans, having their own ecological niche, albeit non-native. Maybe in the end it is simply a question of time scales:hmmmm2: I will say, this has been an interesting debate and conversations such as these are the reasons I joined this forum. I'll wish you and yours all the best for today and the New Year. Kind regards, Gary

As I understand it, both epidemics of DED came into the UK in imported lumber. Chalara fraxina appears to have arrived naturally. ALB arrived in New York State in timber packaging/pallet wood, as is supposedly did here. I have no doubt that certain pathogens have come on imported plants, but with world travel and world trade we're going to struggle unless we become isolationists. I was unaware of any intention to import Danish trees, but I think your arguement is flawed, in that the populations have been isolated since the last ice age. We don't know where any specific tree is from, seeds from the uk are going to Europe and coming back marked as British. Do we truthfully know what is from where anymore. If chalara is from Japan, where it exists with little detriment to the native ash population - with which it has evolved - why should the provenence of any European species of ash really matter. I'm sure Scandanavia thinks that a loss of 80-90% of their trees is more than a setback. Sure replanting will replace losses, but ecologically the loss of mature trees is a crisis. you can't replace two hundred year old trees, the ecological niche, with twenty ten year old trees. The crowdsourcing that has been set up, with a view to share research and knowledge is great, just too late. Nature will run her course, she always has but we're seeing to many losses and changes to our landscape and this is only going to continue. Apparently more threats have surfaced in the last ten years than the last century. Why?

Me too

The pop two or three down, topped with multiple stems, opposite the dark blue driveway gates, doesn't look too clever either

Thought had crossed my mind. I'll get some prices sorted in the new year and discuss the options. I'm not sure if is that slow, maybe just slow to establish. Certainly a better selection to retain at the 3m height without getting too broad.