Jump to content

kevinjohnsonmbe

Member
  • Content Count

    8,655
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    33

About kevinjohnsonmbe

  • Rank
    Senior Member, Raffle Sponsor 2014
  • Birthday August 31

Recent Profile Visitors

7,716 profile views
  1. Just had a quick Youtube and found this vid: They have infilled the gaps with 6mm washed stone chip. The 3 ton water drop test at the end is genuinely impressive! Albeit a different product (Marshalls) rather than the Aggregate industries 'infilta' system, the principle must be similar. Makes me wonder if the developer I met today didn't realise it should have a 'filler' between the blocks. Don't know. I'm going to try the tech desk at Aggregate industries to see what they spec for in between the blocks.
  2. There’s meant to nuffin in the joints Egger! Seems a bit daft to me.
  3. kevinjohnsonmbe

    SuDS

    Anyone come across this system before? Infilta | Aggregate Industries WWW.AGGREGATE.COM A tough, hard wearing permeable block capable of handling heavy-use trafficking but with the ability to provide water... Been to look at a site today where there is a problem with the gaps between the pavers becoming clogged with sediment, debris and moss / weed growth preventing the effective permeability of the surface. Whilst I was there on my own, I hadn't even realised that there were 2 different types of paving - one non permeable (normal block paving) and the other permeable (infilta.) The site foreman didn't appear to be aware either until the developer arrived and explained the difference and what the problem was. Can't help but think this system is pretty much doomed to fail since the necessary gaps between the infilta blocks are certain to become clogged over the passage of time. Just thought I'd throw it out there in case anyone else had encountered (or was considering) this type of system. Anyone got any ideas about how to prevent / remedy / resolve? I can't see the standard type of rotary wire brush or nylon brush vacuum system being particularly effective.
  4. Society would have been better served if the whole mob had been cut in half with a chainsaw. That’d be a good start.
  5. Making the news or jokes thread.... Jokes thread or making the news thread.... Choices, choices:
  6. I had every expectation that it’d descend into a farce pretty quickly - truth be told, I had certain folk in mind 😂 - but I am genuinely shocked at your contribution K. I’m recalibrating my usual high regard for your input as I type. Mr B, no panic mucker, we’re about where we were before 😂 (that’s Mr Bowlam not Mr Bullman!)
  7. I'd question your use of "only" No doubting the precision, it's just that everything else that is a cluster. It's the clusters I want somebody to spot and avoid. There's also the Bartletts vid which is the other option but it's too distant to see much of the useful detail.
  8. I realise this may have some potential for going hysterically off-topic, but does anyone have a picture example of a worksite (preferably sector specific but not essential) where there are a number of H&S or general poor site management issues. It's for an interview so that I can lay it on the table and ask the candidate to highlight any issues they may see as being inappropriate and describe the reasons why.
  9. Parish council are several months behind in publishing minutes so, whilst it was on the agenda, can't even see if it was effectively discussed there. Not withstanding the tree owner may be happy with the outcome, it's a very poor example of process.
  10. UTT/19/2228/TPO | Fell 1 no. Walnut tree | Walnut Cottage Chelmsford Road White Roding CM6 1RF PUBLICACCESS.UTTLESFORD.GOV.UK That's about the most disappointing example of an apparent lack of interest in TPO process from the Tree & Planning officers as I can recall having recently seen.
  11. I'm just guessing, but I'd say the lines that are marked up on the picture probably represent where you have an aspiration to instal patio doors / conservatory - maybe PD, maybe planning app? That's absolutely an assumption / question on my part. Assuming that to be the case, I'd doubt that the 'proximity' issue you mention is the actual reason for the removal since the tree appears to be in good order, well maintained, not particularly imposing and proximity has not been an issue for all of the trees former existence. I'd stress that this is just an assumption on my part based upon what can be seen in the picture you posted. If I'm off the mark, no offence intended. If I'm not, you'll get best feedback when being straight up with people. Just seen the other post: which gives more detail and specifies that planning consent has indeed been granted. Bit surprised by that. Any chance you could post the planning reference so we can have a look at the AIA?
  12. But, on a brighter note, government age verification aspirations for tinterweb porn has been binned 😂😂😂

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.