kevinjohnsonmbe

2 hours ago, Novicegardener101 said:

England. I’m hesitant to be more specific than that, if that’s okay. 

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. 
 

20 minutes ago, Novicegardener101 said:

First let me start by saying for my naivety, I’m ashamed and scared of the repercussions. 

 

Not highlighted during the conveyancing stage, I’ve recently discovered that an old (pre 1990) Woodland TPO overlaps my now garden (property built 10 years later). 
 

I have now seen a copy of the TPO and it is for a woodland area (which overlaps half of my garden, which is lawn, block paving and some planting) along with three named species of tree. 

 

My concern is that I may have inadvertently breached this TPO by pruning a couple of trees/bushes in the garden (they do not seem to be of the named species). There is still woodland to the rear, outside the fence, but the garden, I think obviously, is not. 
 

It seems like the TPO does not reflect the current use of the land. Perhaps development superseded it? Some of the area is still woodland, but part of it now spans multiple garden, none resembling woodland. 
 

I have admitted this error and tried to seek clarity on the councils position but have not had much help yet. 
 

Does it sound like I should be worried about prosecution? I just thought I was doing some general garden maintenance. We know trees to the rear (overhanging) are protected and are seeking permission for works to those - I had no idea the existence/scope of the TPO and am now horrified. Please help and reassure me (if you can!)

What’s your geographical location?

20 hours ago, doobin said:

I see an advert on the home page for the latest Stihl bluetooth comms systems. Does anyone have any reviews or other recommendations? I want to be able to use two sets to assist with winch fells etc, as well as use them to listen to music and talk on the phone whilst operating machinery (so noise cancelling for that would be a big plus)

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...

On 03/03/2023 at 14:29, Mick Dempsey said:

You going to tell us why, in the absence of other methods of applying real pulling power, a truck or loader or even a tracked chipper should not be used if the operators are focking idiots? 

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...

On 02/03/2023 at 10:57, Anno said:

'Could I see your Risk Assesment please?'

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

On 02/03/2023 at 09:24, sime42 said:

It all seems like a case of lowest hanging fruit to me. Much easier to blame a few woodburners rather than address the much bigger issue of all the filthy Chelsea Tractors, and general excess of vehicles on the roads. We can't possibly stand in the way of the oil companies' profits can we?! 

 

We've been breathing woodsmoke forever. It seems far more likely to me that the seemingly recent raft of pollution related health issues stem from one of the modern sources that have already been suggested. Processed foods, plastics, cosmetics, domestic cleaning products, pesticides, non-stick coatings, take your pick. Most people are exposed to several 100s of different chemicals every single day, in their various home/work/leisure environments. I doubt many of them have been tested for the impacts on human health.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

2 hours ago, daltontrees said:

Just saw the TO comments. The double negative cannot be right, all the other indications are that he is saying the exemption would not have been useable.

So, offence. Indicates that an application would not have been approved. Prosecution should follow if any public interest to be served.

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. 

1 hour ago, daltontrees said:

And yes it is an admission of guilt, but technically if it gets retrospective consent then there is no prosecutable offence. It still won't be 'exempt' though.

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. 

1 hour ago, daltontrees said:

There is of course no such thing as a retrospective exemption. I think the application is simply a retrospective application for consent, with the unfortunate use of the word' exemption' (should have said 'TPO consent').

And yes it is an admission of guilt, but technically if it gets retrospective consent then there is no prosecutable offence. It still won't be 'exempt' though.

 

I have always said (because it appears to be the correct interpretation of the law) that it is not legally competent to apply for consent for works that are justified by circumstances that make the works exempt. Councils shouldn't even validate such applications. So there's another good reason why this cannot be an application for exemption.

I can’t reconcile a retrospective application (in TPO context) let alone a retrospective exemption. 
 

A most irregular situation for sure. 

34 minutes ago, Dan Maynard said:

Rum all round. The TO wrote his comments on a Friday afternoon too

" ... it is not considered that the removal of this stem would not have qualified as an exemption ..."

 

So, putting the double negative together it is considered that it would have qualified as an exemption. Or at least that's the way I read it.

 

... and he can tell how tall a tree was from just the remaining cambium:

"Estimating by the available living cambium a reduction of this stem by approximately 3m would have sufficed"

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??

2 hours ago, Ian C said:

They lost me when bugger all happened over the Bartletts pop felling **************** up! 

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 😂

18 minutes ago, Stubby said:

FFS Kev , don't make him feel special ! 😀

But he IS special Stubs 😝😝

On 06/01/2023 at 22:38, trigger_andy said:

In my humble line of work the initial years of an employee working for the company sees the employees training costs equal their yearly wage. 

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!

10 hours ago, Mull said:

You’re about 3 hrs late, that was on “ making the news” earlier! Good though👍

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

19 hours ago, daltontrees said:

I doubt if it was that straightforward.

The FC has published a book (free) on how to measure or estimate itmber volume. By far the most fickle is working out volume based only on stumps, due to basal flare (not stem taper, that is easy to allow for).

Average diameter is NOT a reliable basis for caculating volume, precisely because of taper, which is not uniform along stem. This changes depending on species, habit, exposure, growing conditions, crown damage and loads of other things.

So what was the outcome, did FC drop the prosecution?

I don't think you can infer incompetence from the abilities of a couple of officers. But the old guard who know their stuff are fewer and fewer.

Mensuration is piss easy. FC should be able to get it right, as they wrote the book.

You wouldn’t judge a whole organisation by a couple of examples but when the examples are duplicated and replicated, in all but identical anecdotal reference from completely unconnected experiences from all points of the compass - that’s when you start to get a feel for systemic, organisational lack of competence and relevance. 

On 02/01/2023 at 22:44, Squaredy said:

I was approached recently for help from someone who has been accused by NRW (FC in Wales) of illegal felling.  They were all over him, yet they had no idea how to calculate timber volume.  
 

They wasted loads of their time and their victim’s falsely accusing him of criminality.  They had measured the eight trees in question and then used those measurements to determine the volume felled was 5.2 cubic metre.  What they seemed unaware of is that trees taper.  Using their measurements and average diameter the actual timber felled was less than 4 cubic metres.

 

 Yes, they really had calculated the volume of each log based on the diameter at the thick end only.  And these people probably have forestry degrees and pretty good salaries paid for by our taxes!

Never met a single one that’s worth a toss

8 hours ago, Mull said:

After an edit too🤣

E-aaaaw, E-aaaw, E-aaaways says that…..

1 minute ago, trigger_andy said:

Thorpe pesky moonbats getting it right yet again. 
 

 

Yeah, 

“Unfortunately true” 

Its like it should be the title of an Oasis anthem with a 2022 theme….

Or unprecedentedly shit as a B side track. 

24 minutes ago, coppice cutter said:

It was you who set the tone, an unconventional farmer I may now be, but I'm still a farmer.

 

Therefore, you attack farmers as a collective, you attack me.

 

Yes indeed the farming industry "is an exploitative, capitalist industrial process extracting and exploiting resource for personal profit", but the average farmer is no more responsible for this than the Amazon delivery driver is for their dodgy tax avoidance, or the Tesco/Sainsburys/Waitrose/Morrisons shelf stacker is for their consumer manipulation, or the McDonalds/Burger King burger flipper is for the poor health of a nation poisoned by junk food. Yet they don't get the blame, indeed they more often get sympathy for having no choice but to go with the flow. The average farmer is in the same position, yes some earn more and have more toys to play with, but the situation is the same, you have dependants and nobody is going to thank you for being a homeless, bankrupt, maverick.

 

OK, so I broke the mould but I'm thick, pig-headed, and had personal reasons for going off on my tangent, but I'm also fully aware that without huge changes at all levels of the food industry it is not scaleable.

 

As for "Red Tractor", most farmers detest it, as it is a pen-pushers job creation scheme with no appreciable benefit to anyone other than those administering the scheme itself.

 

I assume you've no skin in the game because if you did you'd have a greater understanding of the actual "game" than you appear to have.

OK, right-o. 
 

you recognise how crap CAP is / was, so much so that you voluntarily chinned it off, but my lack of understanding is the problem….

Right-o. I’ll draw a line under it there….

1 hour ago, coppice cutter said:

So there's a problem.

 

Do you have a solution or are you just going to sit in your ivory tower and blame 'the farmers' like everyone else does?

 

Personally, I haven't used chemical fertiliser for over 10 years, most of the land is now down to permanent pasture, and the only weeds I kill are the thistles which the sheep won't touch and I spot spray with a knapsack using approximately 200ml per year of a chemical which the EU banned from being used in a knapsack and would prefer I sprayed the entire field with killing everything other than than the grass itself.

 

I farm like this because I think it's the right way to farm, I've few financial responsibilities any more, and they can't threaten me with taking my farm payments away because I don't claim anything from the b@stards.

 

However, I'm not going to point the finger accusingly at anyone farming 'conventionally' because many of them are younger, have financial responsibilities, and what consumers, including yourself no doubt,  pay for their food simply would not sustain my farming practices to be scaled up across the land.

 

I wish it would change but all I ever see is gurning, griping, and sniping from people like yourself (and George f**king Monbiot!), and never see any positive input about how to change it.

 

Far too easy to accuse when you've no skin in the game.

 

*edit* - for clarification, I farm grade one arable lowland, not upland.

When you started with "...so here's the problem..." I actually thought there was going to be something substantial / meaningful to follow....

I don't have an ivory tower but I will look at the figures and draw my own conclusions - if there is blame to be apportioned it will lay where it lays.  

Look at the numbers - 70% of UK land in intensive agriculture, 56% species denudation.  You don't have to be Sir John Curtice to run the numbers.

If farmers are NOT responsible then who the f*ck is?

The next 2 points in your post we can agree on - 

The CAP (an EU directive) was completely ludicrous, misapplied, exploited, damaging, corrupt, ineffective, blah, blah, blah....  A very firm part of my anti EU stance BTW and hats off to you for chinning them off.

The next part is the uncomfortable truth - far from being the much vaunted NFU 'custodians of the countryside' and general all round good eggs in regard to the natural environment, the agricultural sector (on a macro level) is an exploitative, capitalist industrial process extracting and exploiting resource for personal profit.  Maybe that cute little red tractor would be better described in these terms?

It's odd to me that you perceive my input as gurning, griping, and sniping, what?  Am I not allowed an alternative POV?  You clearly understand that some of what I highlight is a real world problem because you recognise that some are driven by financial need (greed) and that you have turned your back on that system.  By your own example therefore the point I seek to present, rather than gurning, griping, and sniping, is actually proven by your own word and deed.

How do you assess that I have no skin in the game?

Let's not fall out over it, it seems to me we have more to agree about that you seem to want to disagree with....  😉 

34 minutes ago, coppice cutter said:

He's been getting a good old (and well deserved) kicking over on the farming forum.

 

Enjoy!

 

https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/moonbat-now-after-woodburners.382643/

 

 

That well known and widely acclaimed academic resource - the farming forum.....  😂

Between 1970 and 2013, 56% of species in the UK declined.

The biggest impact on UK wildlife has been the intensification of agriculture.

Agriculture accounts for over 70% of land use in the UK, but the environmental damage we have suffered while inside the current Common Agricultural Policy has been significant.

Soil health has deteriorated.

Numbers of farmland bird species such as the grey partridge, tree sparrow, skylark, linnet and yellowhammer have dropped.

Precious UK habitats have been eroded.

Intensive farming has resulted in the loss of flower meadows, hedgerows and trees – all of which are vital habitats for pollinating insects such as bees, with knock-on effects for species further up the food chain.

5 threats to UK wildlife | WWF

WWW.WWF.ORG.UK

---

We’re losing our incredible wildlife at an alarming rate. We need to act quickly to restore nature. Here we look at 5 threats to...

1 hour ago, Stere said:

My burning shame: I fitted my house with three wood-burning stoves | George Monbiot | The Guardian

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

---

Wood burners are awful for the environment and flood our homes with toxins, too. I wish I’d known that in 2008, says...

 

 

hmmm 🤨

It is almost a carbon copy (pun intended) of this article from several years ago - at least he is 'recycling' his articles rather than doing any 'new' work over the festive period: 

Wood burners triple harmful indoor air pollution, study finds | Air pollution | The Guardian

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

---

Exclusive: Burners should be sold with health warnings, say scientists who found tiny particles flooding into rooms

9 hours ago, Johnsond said:

Dover Border Force official arrested — for being an illegal migrant

APPLE.NEWS

---

EXCLUSIVE

😞🤷‍♂️

F*cking legendary!

I've no beef with those that aspire to a borderless world - I think they are deluded fools, but I respect their right to hold that opinion.

What grips me the most is the complete waste of money having a (so-called) 'system' which is hugely expensive and TOTALLY ineffective.

Either have borders - and enforce them, or have a free-for-all and save the money that is currently being spaffed up the wall on a system that evidentially does not work.

Why should I wait in line to have a disinterested, potentially illegal, immigration mong check my passport at Heathrow when there are 10s of thousands of these c*nts arriving by boat on the South coast every year....

One or the other people.