kevinjohnsonmbe

Some hobbies come and go over time.... That one's definitely a 'keeper!' ?

All 4 same species?

I'm guessing you mean the Conservative party? What makes you think they are my mates? I like Boris and JRM, Thatcher was decades ahead of her time, there may be a few others that are noteworthy, but there are many that I dislike intensely. That said, the current state of the Labour Party under Corbyn is a nightmare waiting to (hopefully never) happen. If I had to choose one or the other as a binary choice it'd be a no-brainer - but that's not to say I'd vote Tory if a viable option was available.

Vote Labour, you’ll have all the time in the world to do the work - and then have an end of work BBQ & PU on the tracks ?

I thought it would have been this part that raised the question: “...Also Duncan Slater published an article a coupel of years ago making a good case that trees are positively hostile to each other, especially if the same species...” Gonna have to try and look that up.

The categorisation element is an interesting one Jules. Difficult to justify "U" since it is caveated by the "in the context of the current land use" phrase. The current land use doesn't impose a "less than 10 years" implication. The current land use could see them continue until failure - which would likely be greater than 10 years (notwithstanding pathogens.) C1 would probably be the closest in a less than optimum choice of categories. Then one or multiple RPAs can be calculated. But if anyone then draws multiple RPAs as circles, they're kidding themselves on. I mean, how would the roots of the smaller stems get under the large stem? This opens a question for me... Leaving aside the (less than ideal) issue of RPA 'circles' as an unrealistic but perhaps workable (unless obvious obstructions exist) compromise for presenting likely or anticipated extent of the rooting presence, wouldn't it be the case that the result of combining the multiple stem DBHs to provide the 'big circle' takes account of the reality that some of the smaller diameter stems will not reach the outer extremities of the big circle (uniformly) but that having this method allows for a kind of over estimation which 'should' accommodate the lesser or off-set root areas of the smaller diameter trees? I'm hoping this whole situation will arrive at a conclusion before too long, then I might be able to share some more of the details.

I've done both Ed with exactly that (worst case scenario) premise in mind - worst case scenario doesn't present an RPA which is anywhere near being a barrier to the proposed development - on that basis alone (there are potentially other issues though.) There is quite an entertaining tale behind the sequencing of this one, I may be able to elaborate more soonish....

Would you call it 1 tree or separates Ed? It doesn’t matter either way in relation to the report, combined or as separates, RPA, distance, gradient and pre-existing natural barriers to root place it firmly out-with the proposed development footprint

Any opinions on this one? Is it a multi-stem where the combined measurements at DBH provide the total for RPA calc or are they separate trees? I've done the calc's for both and neither present an RPA which would adversely impact the development proposal so it's kind of a mute point but just interested to see how others might approach it. Short of excavating, and my time / interest / payment doesn't extend that far, and noting the obvious age difference between the main stem and the others, difficult to determine if they are part of the same tree or seedlings that have fallen close by. Any thoughts appreciated!

Bloody immigrants - coming over here taking all our jobs.... Bring on Brexit!

I remember a thread from a fair while back (in good ol' days when TCD was still in the manor.) I'd photo grabbed an outfit in Plymuff doing street tree pollards. 1 bloke up the tree on a ladder, 1 bloke in the van round the corner having his snap and the 3rd bloke at the chipper at the back of the van round the corner. No ™, cyclist and pedestrians in the shot - it was a sight to behold!! Spoke to a mate who used to work for said outfit and he reckoned it was something like £4/tree! If that's anything like true the brown envelopes would need to be going in the other direction!! ?

I felled 7 in that size range (2 in the >1000mm dbh) on Sunday between 11 - 14:00 with myself cutting and mate on a 1.5t. Cut, ringed, brashed up and piled on site. Granted, nothing had to leave site and there was no chipping so that's probably not a realistic scenario for this. Taking account of moving everything off site would be the bigger part of the task. If spec is to remove everything < 1 per day would be more realistic if it was in the larger end of 60cm + range.

I've tried, it's driving me nuts! I wouldn't do it or I'd just make a massively over-priced SWAG. The felling row, assuming unobstructed clear fell rather than climb / dismantle appears on the low side (assuming they are not genuinely massive trees - 60cm+ is a pretty non specific range)

Sorry to be a pain, and recognising that we have to work with what we've got, I don't "get" the table. Is each individual cell a total for the day or do the rows run across to give a cumulative total for the day? Are the estimates per day based on 1, 2, 3 etc teams (of 5 blokes (I'm guessing if ™ inclusive?) It's close enough to impossible to make it not worth trying... Or, just go big £ and have a holiday if it wins.

Agreed, may be a bit over cautious - was just a thought. I am of the view that some of these ‘opportunities’ require so much ‘input effort’ for an ever decreasing contract value that they start to look like more hassle than they are worth. The result being, it’s either newly formed outfits under pricing and under delivering or its bigger outfits using these as loss leaders just to keep the teams busy at slow times. Just my thinking on a ‘not so positive feeling’ evening!

Totally agree comments above! Well worth checking https://www.chainsawbars.co.uk/ for great videos, great product reviews, great range of the best available accessories and great customer service. I think they are a sponsor of this site and regularly post and comment too! (I’m a repeat customer and not in any way connected to the business - completely independent opinion!)

Have you checked the ITT terms for non disclosure / collusion arrangements? It's possible that an exercise such as this could be interpreted as engagement with other economic operators aimed at distorting competition. Maybe that's a bit too cautious just thinking out loud loike...

Racial backlash causes Apu to be written out of Simpsons: https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/27/apu-is-being-written-out-of-the-simpsons-following-racial-stereotype-backlash-8079858/ Was an entertaining listen on LBC this afternoon.

Bailed? Really?? TR gets lifted, tried, sentenced and taken down in 5hrs - for talking. These likely lads get caught red handed by a car full of expert witnesses in the execution of a violent crime with premeditation, intent and an offensive weapon - and they get bailed! Even if you think TR is a chopper, you’ve gotta wonder what the world of law & order is coming to.....

Mother Earth is giving her gentle warnings.... She be like “....stop f*cking poking me or sh*t gonna get messy...” https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-lancashire-46017252

Thanx, dat's what me meant @spellchecker ?

I'm full square alongside you on this one Vesp as a general approach - but, mindful that we don't know all of the background behind this particular set of circumstances, it's caveated as a general personal approach and in no way intended to infer any criticism of OP. If I can't, or don't want to do a job, I'm happy to pass on a recommend of someone that can (if I have one) in the expectation that karma will repay in the long run. I also have an aversion to the concept of "finders fee" - might be different if I was desperate for work, but as a general rule - I hold the view that it smacks of opportunism and seeking revenue for no gainful work which is a scourge of modern society.

Bit risky using words like 'definitely' when we haven't seen the contract. Also, I'd suggest there is no generally accepted definition / level attributed to force majeure - I mean, it doesn't have to be a meteorite strike to qualify, it could be as simple as a change in medical or personal circumstances. Agree the second part of your post though.

That’s odd Mark, we usually find it so easy to disagree ?

Anyone that needs Saatchi & Scumbag to tell ‘em what they need in their life doesn’t really have a life, they have a dependency!!