kevinjohnsonmbe

You might end up with some general opinions, maybe even some opposing views but your best bet would be to get someone local to have a proper look at the site and the circumstances. I’d suggest it would be money well spent to allay your fears or to propose a mutually agreeable remediation. If you were to indicate a geographic region you might get someone nearby to take it on.

What’s your geographical location?

I’ve got over ear and in ear versions of ISOTUNES kit. Really rate it and customer service is first class! Thought I’d lost the over ear duffs when I found something had chewed off both ear pads. Emailed company and they sent out spare pads same day FOC! Bluetooth Hearing Protection ISOTUNES.CO.UK ISOtunes® hearing protection merges certified protection with cutting-edge communication technology to give you a...

I'd just 'tweak' your question a touch Michael.... A basic understanding of physics, tree physiology and appropriate felling technique combined with the assistance of a mechanical pull is entirely reasonable. There is no place in that equation for idiocy though and the idiocy supersedes all else where it wasn't even thought necessary to stop the traffic. I do like your point about c*nts like this periodically providing the evidence of why prices are what I say they are/ If you think good tree work is expensive, try getting some poor tree work...

Hold on, it's in the file with the certificates of competency.....

Ban wood burners - Heathrow expansion to cater for recreational flights - OK.....

That’s what I concluded. The only point I wasn’t clear on - but suspected it not to be the case unlike in building without or other than in accordance with the regs - you cannot have a retrospective TPO approval whereas you can have a retrospective building approval. I’ll be exploring it further with a query to the case officer. Public interest….? A publicly funded QUANGO (NE) engaging an apparently inept contractor to undertake inappropriate work within a National Nature Reserve in contravention of simple TPO restrictions being judged for public interest by a LA that suffers from exceptionally low public confidence…. Wouldn’t expect it to progress very far.

I don’t see how it can get retrospective consent given the TOs comments. It would surely need to be withdrawn or amended - it can’t (realistically) be approved by PO with those TO comments.

I can’t reconcile a retrospective application (in TPO context) let alone a retrospective exemption. A most irregular situation for sure.

It’s destabilised dude….

Seems a peculiar / irregular approach to me. Natural England - the tree 'owner' - applying for the retrospective exemption for the felling of a stem - claimed under an exemption which the TO later decided didn't apply, then submitting an application seemingly to validate the exemption which didn't apply..... Whereas the TO comment at the planning application advises that a future application would be necessary to crown reduce retained stems to mitigate companion loss, this is not that application but rather an after the event application seeking retrospective approval for work which was not exempt. To put it another way.... This is a written admission of failure to abide by the T&CPA - the only matter to be decided is whether prosecution would be in the public interest (answers on a post card😌) Any comments?? PA23/01362 | Application for works to a tree subject to tree preservation order, namely retrospective exemption for felling the southern stem of a multi-stem Beech, Fagus Sylvatica. | Golitha Falls Draynes Bridge Common Moor Cornwall PL14 6RY PLANNING.CORNWALL.GOV.UK Online planning registers for Cornwall. View and comment on planning applications and documents online.

Nothing ‘could’ happen could it….. Wouldn’t ‘do’ to be critical of the gold sponsor of the Arb show which followed shortly after the trick fell event 😂

But he IS special Stubs 😝😝

Your line of work seems a bit specialised Andy so you’d expect training costs to be high in the early years. That said, I’m currently looking at a comparison between a fixed term 2 year direct employment and a contracted out option for a business opportunity I’m assessing. It has come as a bit of a shock to run the actual numbers behind the assumption that an employee salary is multiplied by 1.5-1.75 to give the ‘cost’ of that body to the business. The higher the training, equipment and tools / machinery requirement, plus T&S for a mobile role, the higher still - obviously. Personally, I’ve run for years without direct employed - predominantly because I don’t do full time, but having just run the figures in detail, I see money / cost as just 1 of a whole raft of issues which makes direct employment so much more trouble than it’s worth for micro / SMEs. As it stands, it’s looking like a +/- 30% cost efficiency from contracted services over fixed term direct employment contract and it’s likely (as an ‘experience based’ assessment,) that contract staff will deliver output in about ½ the time of direct employed primarily because of job and knock motivation. Because I have had to get right down into the detail, rather than just rolling with a gut feeling, I am shocked by what I have found in terms of how hard it has been made for a micro / SME to work effectively. To get back on track, actual staff performance is just 1 headache of direct employment - there are way too many others!

Yeah, I’m slower these days - I just saw it.