kevinjohnsonmbe

I probably didn't express that as intended! Agree all bats are protected (unlike trees), but what I meant was, sometimes over restrictive legislation can have a negative rather than a positive effect e.g.: Aversion to allowing / maintaining / sustaining bats roosts - and trees with potential for protection because of the potential hassle involved downstream. I wasn't disagreeing with you, just presenting (not very well perhaps) a parallel comparison.

And similar logic could be applied to bat regs...

Ed, it was the PO that thought trees were not a consideration! Desperate times!! Email just sent.... Thank you for the phone call yesterday. It came as quite a surprise to hear that you would not consider trees in relation to planning applications unless there are Conservation Area (CA) or Tree Preservation Order (TPO) considerations. This would appear to be contrary to the recommendations in British Standard 5837:2012 Introduction which states: “...Existing trees are an important factor on construction sites, whether on or near the working areas, and trees are a material consideration in the UK planning system (see Annex B)…” And Annex B which states: “...Under the UK planning system, local authorities have a statutory duty to consider the protection and planting of trees when granting planning permission for proposed development. The potential effect of development on trees, whether statutorily protected (e.g. by a tree preservation order or by their inclusion within a conservation area) or not, is a material consideration that is taken into account in dealing with planning applications …” I’ve attached a (not to exact scale) map extract which highlights the existing TPO’d trees within St Clarus churchyard - this is a closed cemetery and falls under the stewardship of Cornwall council. There is a prior history of Meripilus giganteus leading to catastrophic wind throw failure of mature Beech in the cemetery. Root wounding of mature Beech is a recognised means by which this fungal pathogen can become established. There are notable high value human, property and highway target areas within failure range of these trees. Failure to apply adequate planning controls for the protection of trees which may later be attributed to failure could have significant liability considerations and also could give rise to questionable stewardship of TPO’d trees by the Authority. Alongside this, there remains the issue of the existing trees within the development site which are in the immediate vicinity of the current excavations. I have submitted a Planning Enforcement query as this seemed the 'least bad’ way of attempting to highlight the scenario although it is noted that, since the development is progressing iaw the DN, it may not actually constitute a breech? Appreciate this may be a peculiar situation and I’m keen to learn from it so as to apply gained knowledge in the future.

Difficult to decide which is more tragic.... The muppets commenting or the Guardian for running such a non-story...?

(1) Accurate.... (2) Funny.... (3) Not derogatory..... (see 1) Nah, can't be racist!

Source doc's and details here: https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/environment-and-planning/planning/online-planning-register/ search under planning app numbers: PA17/04381 and PA17/04749

Here's the scenario: A domestic applicant submits a planning application for internal changes to a listed building and the new build of a double garage in the existing garden. The application form (section 7 Trees & Hedges) states there are no trees within or adjacent to the development site. The application is considered by the Parish council as an advisory consultee and, whilst not objecting to the development in principle, it is noted that the application form is incorrect in that there ARE trees within the development site and TPO'd trees in reasonably close proximity (RPA effected) adjacent in the nearby cemetery. The Parish council support the development in principle subject to TO's consideration of the trees in the immediate vicinity. The application is approved, with conditions (but none that relate to trees) and work starts pretty much before the ink is dry on the DN. Applicant and contractor are acting within the terms of the approved application. Application form, as submitted, can be shown to be incorrect in relation to existing trees. Email / phone contact with Planning officer results in PO stating that unless within CA or TPO'd, there's no requirement for any consideration of trees on or adjacent to a domestic development site.... (?) You can imagine how that conversation went! There is now an excavator on site a a big hole within the RPAs of trees within the development site and that of the larger, mature, TPO'd trees which are nearby off site. If you could accept that the application form was incorrect (either by accident or design) and that the Parish council attempted (maybe not sufficiently forcefully) to highlight this and that the PO didn't take account of it (either because it was insufficiently worded or that they are insufficiently aware of BS 5837) where would you apportion blame (if such a thing would be appropriate?) If it gets lively or if anybody wants to look at the source documents, I can link the planning page where all of the above can be viewed first hand...

Not sure if the link will work as it's a FB page...

Try page 1 of the thread and read until you either (a) top yourself (b) give up ( c) die of old age! PS - you won't find the answer either..... It's due to be added to this list: http://www.futuristspeaker.com/future-scenarios/10-unanswerable-questions-that-neither-science-nor-religion-can-answer/

That was a question I put to the (less than knowledgable / honest) dealership shortly after purchase. Something is out. I wondered if (as I thought) the Invincible gets the larger diameter wheels as part of the spec-up, it had an effect on the speedo. Asked the dealer, They had nothing more than the "as long as it's under and within the variances, it's not a problem." I didn't buy it, along with the other, what I thought were, fairly straight forward questions which resulted in the sort of answers that one wouldn't expect from a professional and knowledgeable product supplier. This whole thread, back at the beginning, came about because I couldn't seem to get any reliable, honest answers from the dealership. The net result is that I think the dealership that supplied my vehicle are either amateur or FOS!

If they meet ALL the qualifying criteria for DPV (and it's the maximum weight question which started the whole discussion) They must also have a second row of seats, rear windows etc, so (loosely) twin cabs are DPV and single cabs not. But, the twin cabs keep getting heavier and it's almost impossible to get a stock answer as to what the weight is because everyone seems to be using a different metric to measure it.

Tricky for the consumer! If they've fraudulently claimed, and yr mate can show qty supplied, they could be in for a sanction or loss of RHI. Be interested to to hear how it pans out!

I'm closer to 8-10 mph under reading on speedo in comparison to GPS @ 70! (Speedo reads 70 when GPS says 60ish)

Makes sense! good question. Id doubt that the "system" is intelligent enough to match customer declarations of fuel purchased and used to supplier records of fuel supplied. May be wrong, but if I were a betting man... I don't even know of any users that have been audited yet. Have you you tried phoning the helpline to clarify?

By your vehicles speedo? Probably <60 really, as the lorry would know (are tacho GPS?) my Hilux speedo reads well under what GPS on dash cam shows.

Awesome, good read!

Where is the article....?

Don't cross the Tamar Ant!

There's a lot of reading here!

Training costs are not so straight forward. Mandatory training (e.g. First Aid) and refresher or re-certification of existing skills (NPTC, FISA etc) may be eligible for submission as a business expense within SATR. Initial training costs such as the suite of NPTC qual's one might embark upon at the beginning of a career change not so straight forward - exercise some caution here. They may be classified by HMRC as an 'intangible benefit' to the business and be disallowed from submission as a business expense. Wiley, happy to have a yarn by phone if you'd like. Meanwhile, I'll see if I can find the thread from away-back which discusses a lot of this. I need to find it anyway because I've got quite a big update to fill in....

Thanks for the update guys! I don't think we did get a 'cut & dried' answer - perhaps to be expected when most of us probably didn't actually want the answer that we probably knew was correct! Toyota Carlisle appear to be more (honest?) professional than the people I was asking the question of who either genuinely didn't know or were being economical with the truth for fear of jeopardising the sale. I'd imagine, if/when the time comes, that the cameras are 'smarter' and data base linked, and all the correct spec's are known and input, it'll all be automated without any human law enforcement indecision or lack of knowledge - that's the day we're all doomed - doomed I tells ya!! (or we could just slow down a bit.....?)

7.62 (typo) no less scary though!

Sounds like a L6 question that Tom! "...An arborist, by definition, is an individual trained in the art and science of planting, caring for, and maintaining individual trees. Arborists are knowledgeable about the needs of trees and are trained and equipped to provide proper care..." http://www.isa-arbor.com/publicoutreach/whyhirecertifiedarborist/index.aspx "...An arborist, or (less commonly) arboriculturist, is a professional in the practice of arboriculture, which is the cultivation, management, and study of individual trees, shrubs, vines, and other perennial woody plants. Arborists generally focus on the health and safety of individual plants and trees, rather than managing forests (the domains of forestry and silviculture) or harvesting wood. An arborist's scope of work is therefore distinct from that of either a forester or a logger, though the professions share much in common..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arborist And The Arboriculturist's Companion - A guide to the Care of Trees NDG James ISBN 978-0-6311-6774-7 also looks at the question. The term Arborist, and certainly Arboriculturalist, tends to result in having to dumb it down to Tree Surgeon in most conversations anyway so what's the point calling yourself something that people don't recognise or understand...

No way! There's already too many to keep up with!

Could it be a bit like Youtube, if you're not active on the page, background data transfer is put on hold to ease loading on processor / wi-fi etc? I just found another cheeky little bonus, if you want to quote a part of a post rather than the whole thing, highlight the specific text in the post you want to quote and a little click-on option comes up saying "quote this". And you can do it at any point whilst typing a reply - that's handy!