kevinjohnsonmbe

Fixed...

😜 perhaps I should have said others might be considered and this one could be amended / adjusted - but I didn't want to join you on the naughty step!!

Charles Moore was talking sense.

Good post that 👍🏻

There's a scam reported as doing the rounds in Cornwall at the moment: https://www.piratefm.co.uk/news/latest-news/2291787/watch-the-council-tax-scam-hitting-cornwall/ "...Warnings are going out to Cornwall over a new council tax scam. Apparently fraudsters have been pretending to work for the council and offering tax refunds..." I'm not buying it as a "new scam." There have been clowns PRETENDING to work for the council for years....!!

Just to add a little to the already sound opinions... "...We have a tree that we consider represents a significant danger to both us and our neighbours..." It is incumbent upon the person seeking approval for works to provide sufficient evidential detail and/or expert opinion to justify the nature and extent of the works being requested. You need a credible, detailed report. "...it regularly sheds branches during storms, 3 of which have hit our property so far..." That which has gone before might be a useful and relevant appendix but it should not be relied upon as the main basis of the application which ought to be observable defect or dysfunction combined with analysis of potential implications / predicted timeframe and then set within the context of probability and consequence of predicted failure. "...The tree is subject to a tpo and the LA have declined any work to it, suggesting it's a healthy tree..." I think what you probably mean here is they have declined the work you have previously applied for? If that's correct, it might be assumed that the work you applied for was not sufficiently justified as mentioned above. A refusal to approve a TPO application does not equate to a statement of health, safety and vitality of the tree, it is simply a refusal of the application as submitted. "...I guess what I am asking is to what extent does a tree have to be considered dangerous to be able to serve a notice and have it removed, and if possible what is the procedure..." That's been well covered already. "...Past applications for having it removed have failed in addition to a claim to the planning inspectorate..." Either, there was insufficient credible evidence presented to justify the extent of the works, or, the LA and the Planning Inspector didn't agree with that which was submitted, or, despite the unease the situation is causing you, the LA & PINS consider the amenity worth of the tree outweighs the personal unease you are experiencing. "... If I was a sceptical person I would suspect we are up against a very vindictive TO..." The coincidence of a vindictive TO & PINS? On the balance of probability, it would be infinitely more likely that the quality of the submission is where the deficiency lies. If it becomes possible in the future, perhaps share a link to your planning submission and you'll very likely get some honest (possibly painfully honest) feedback on the supporting argument for the application. There's no doubt from the sincerity of your text that you are experiencing concern and that your previous attempts to resolve have not been successful. Perhaps an alternative to stressing over the perception of risk posed by the tree might be to establish a more quantified assessment of the actual risk posed by the tree? One method which might provide this is Quantified Tree Risk Assessment and you might find a local practitioner at this link: https://www.qtra.co.uk/cms/index.php?section=37 Other systems and methods are available and might be considered.

At least they haven't assumed the ultimate illusion of grandeur and ventured into inspecting or surveying trees yet..... :lol: Damn their eyes!

Here we are 5 months on so must be time for a quick update! Received today from the Rozzers a letter stating that the other party had recently completed, at their own expense, a 1 day Driver Alertness and Improvement Course as an alternative to prosecution. The file is now closed. However, if they are involved in a similar incident within 3 years the police will ordinarily refer the matter for automatic prosecution. Well the police file may be closed and the vehicle has been repaired satisfactorily, but my file is not yet closed. There remains the matter of a moneyclaimonline (small claims court) action for recovery of uninsured losses. That seems to be progressing with the other party's legal team initially refusing to accept liability and rejecting the offer of mediation to recently requesting detail of the uninsured losses in order to fully assess the claim.

Immoral? I guess that can only be judged by the morals of the person faced with the situation. Illegal - no doubt about it: https://www.gov.uk/employer-preventing-discrimination/recruitment If done right, it's enough to make all but the most avidly PC never want to get involved in direct recruitment.

See where you're going with that... Except that, as was, without any personal financial contribution, a failed applicant could, if they were so minded, have brought you to tribunal where you would be called upon to demonstrate why 1 candidate was selected in preference to A.N. Other if it was claimed that a protected characteristic had been breached and, in all other respects, A.N. Other was equally or better qualified (on paper) for the position. That, no cost, access to tribunal has now been removed to great calls of unfairness from the TUs (even in the face of considerable historic data which showed a high proportion of spurious / vexatious claims.) I'm not sure "great tits" would be a justifiable defence (unless perhaps it was an RSPB job application!)

On reflection.... Single person working away from home - bored, out on the lash / pull, hangover, distracted all day by mobile phone and incessant groinal scratching of small pubic crustacians... Married person working away from home - crack-on, work late, get the work done, get home early Thursday night or Fri morning... Not suggesting a universal standard, just based on my experience....

You've hit upon quite a few of the "protected characteristics" prescribed by the Equality Act 2010 there Wes. https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/types-of-discrimination It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of: age being or becoming a transsexual person being married or in a civil partnership being pregnant or on maternity leave disability race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin religion, belief or lack of religion/belief sex sexual orientation Agreeing, it's not easy, and certainly even more challenging for SMEs in comparison to Public Sector or larger companies to achieve and maintain compliancy. Just posting (from my safe space) the law as it currently stands without accepting any liability for it, expressing any support for, or disagreement with it...

Is that cash or "booked" £50/day?

It's a tough one! "About £10/hr" is only "about" £2 more than NLW (£7.50) Urban myth has it that stacking shelves in Aldi is available at £10/hr - probably with the promotion potential of a large company. If I had the option of 2 jobs, similar pay, but 1 was indoors and relatively benign, the other was hard graft, outdoors in all weather, I'd probably take Aldi. Sorry, can't offer any insightful inspiration.

Again, without wishing to raise an argument seemingly just for arguments sake, I'd suggest that the judgement does not (in itself) provide justification for PI insurance. In fact, it's quite the opposite since the character in the dock found he didn't have cover and still had a judgement in his favour (albeit with stark criticisms.) But putting that aside as a relatively minor discussion point... Just read the report attached above. It seems to suggest that drive-by "inspections" by poorly trained (undefined) staff is unwise. Nothing at all to disagree with there! But, again, that's a world away from the guidance in NTSG...

In true AT fashion, the OP appears to have satisfied their quest for opinions (tick) and the debate continues unabated. Hopefully providing benefit to onlookers, goofers, the mildly interested and the actively engaged. Without wishing to be personally confrontational, there are elements of the thread, and the post above, which may benefit from further discussion. Firstly, I'm not convinced the Cavanagh v Witley judgement provides appropriate / suitable reference to support the arguments being presented for pre-requisite qualifications for tree inspections: Para 48 - "...I am also satisfied that Mr S had the necessary experience and expertise to undertake a survey of this kind… " It appears to be accepted that, (to quote ) as a "tree surgeon", he had the experience (supposedly) but was idle or negligent in undertaking the duty. That's quite far removed from assuming the judgement defines necessary competences - or that, if it is accepted that the judgement defines appropriate competences, then it must follow that "tree surgeons" are appropriately qualified (depending upon the level of inspection) because that is what the judgement found. What might be defined as the necessary experience did not appear to be defined in the judgement, nor was any reference made to NTSG document which clearly DOES define it. As such, I think the judgement is being misrepresented in this respect. Perhaps not surprisingly, it's so rare that a meaty document is available. From post above "...the source of ongoing confusion about whether tree surgeons should be doing tree surveys..." Is there confusion? If you think so, are you suggesting the contributors to NTSG are the confused?? It seems quite clear. The difficulty I'd have with agreeing (in full) with the position that surveys are for surveyors and cutting is for cutters is (a) it's not what is supported by credible industry documentation and (b) to support the premise that only the god like academics, desk monkeys and keyboard technicians might be worthy of assessing trees is to present a potential barrier to a large majority of very enthusiastic, highly engaged and broadly experienced "operators" within the tree / arb world who might be given to believing surveying / inspecting is beyond their capacity. Today's cutters and climbers may well be tomorrow's surveyors and consultants so its not a particularly progressive approach to take. Noting of course the cautionary detail that (i) all things must be within (or just at the limits) of the knowledge / capability of the practitioner - how else might a person raise their game, (ii) that conflict of surveying jobs for one's self could give rise to sharp practice and that (iii) negligence, laziness or incompetence are matters for individuals rather than parameters that might tarnish or restrict whole sections of an industry - that fact is quite clearly defined in the judgement

There is another possible explanation Reg... Active/outdoor/sports wear, when logo'd, is deductible for tax efficiency. What's not to like? Choose the kit you'd otherwise buy for dog walking / sports & recreational, stick yr trading name (discretely) on it, let Hector cover the VAT and reduce yr tax liability - taking due care of course never to use or wear any work wear for private recreational purposes 😜

Maybe, with some more detail of the actual request (sanitised for commercial sensitivities perhaps), it would be easier to comment on appropriate level of competences necessary. Who can make informal observations? People with good local knowledge and familiarity with local trees are suited to carrying out informal observations. Typically, this does not require a tree specialist, but rather those closely associated with a property, such as the owner, gardener, other employee or agent, who understands the way the property is used (areas most and least frequented) and the extent of the danger, should a tree be found that is falling apart or uprooting. Reports of problems by staff or members of the public are a fundamental part of informal observations and should be acted upon. Who can make a formal inspection? Formal inspections do not necessarily require specific qualifications but do require general tree knowledge and the ability to recognise normal and abnormal appearance and growth for thelocality. Inspectors need the capacity to assess approximate tree height and falling distance from the tree to the area of use and when to request a detailed inspection. They also need an ability to recognise obviously visible signs of serious ill health or significant structural problems, such as substantial fractured branches or a rocking root plate which, were they to cause tree failure, could result in serious harm. Who can do a detailed inspection? Detailed inspections require an appropriately competent person, experienced in the field of investigation that is to be carried out. Whoever is commissioning the detailed inspection should satisfy themselves as to the suitability of the inspector’s qualifications, experience and professional indemnity and public liability insurance. Professional bodies who can offer guidance are listed in the contacts section at the end of this document. A specialist involved in conducting a detailed tree inspection should be able to demonstrate the reasonable basis for allocating risks according to priority, and identify cost-effective ways of managing those tree-related risks. Common Sense Risk Management of Trees (2011, 51 & 52) Training / certification / insurance certainly for Detailed Inspections, not necessarily so for informal / formal inspections, at least according to NTSG...

http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/trees-law/106475-cavanagh-v-witley-parish-council-tree-inspection-regimes.html

Have a read of this: Common Sense Risk Management of trees http://ntsgroup.org.uk/guidance-publications/ Maybe you / they may be content with that level? An inspection by a knowledgable arborist with the ability to call in more specialised inspection for specific "features" that may be worthy of more detail. If not, perhaps PTI and / or QTRA might be necessary?

It's raining Gary!! (PS, pot / kettle?) Speech - excellent! Q&A - sketchy... First contact with the enemy (Daily Politics) - starting to disintegrate.... It's all about the money, talk is cheap. Making empty promises to appeal to "the many" is the easy bit, but spending the same money many times over is delusional!! 🤔

Excellent and very well delivered speech by Mr Corbyn. Now to download the document and have a good read then wait for the financial analysis.

It's a bit further afield (about as far as possible really) but Nimbin NSW is by far and away the whackiest place I've been. Only stayed a couple of days whilst on a surf safari Sydney - Byron, any longer and there was a definite and very real possibility of being sucked into the vortex!

Totnes! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totnes

Mermaid??