kevinjohnsonmbe

USMC Major from our training team

All very good, valid points! I suspect the intent of the 'strategic politician' will be eroded, choked and extinguished by the lethargy and stifling inertia of local government "tactical civil servant' in any case....

Planning shake-up to get more homes built - BBC News Better to use existing brown field sites rather than continuing erosion of green field sites? If there is going to be a "presumption of approval", does that mean AIA / AMS for brown field sites are redundant?

Some crazy giant stuck a pair of swords in the ground then heaped up the helmets of dead soldiers at either end:

:thumbup1: Don't forget to tell us how it turns out! Good luck!

here's a link to current NPTC units: https://www.nptc.org.uk/qualificationschemes.aspx?id=3 sounds like 002001,2,3 would suit your needs. It's not so much a "legal requirement" to do these courses, you can perfectly legally cut timber and use a chainsaw without the quals but they are very good and would quite likely improve working safety, productivity and longevity of kit / machinery. It would also demonstrate good practice whereas the absence of recognised training might leave you open to examination from HSE if there were ever a mishap / accident.

Interesting! I'm on a course today and one of the guys introduced himself as a "utility arborist." If ever there could be a greater contradiction?? For web search purposes, "tree surgeon" has to be the best option I'd say.

👍🏻 Care & caution since it's not a design feature. If things go wrong, it may void warranty and have PUWER / HSE implications.

I like the mention of the "other guy" that tried something similar - he had helium weather balloons (a bit more durable) and a hand gun to shoot out the balloons if he went too high! He clearly put a bit more thought into his brilliantly reckless endeavour. Now that's the kind of bloke you want on a lads weekend in Prague - some kind of insane cross between Felix Baumgartner and Shelby from Swamp Loggers! [ame] [/ame] [ame] [/ame] It's a fine line between brilliance & insanity...

I have a similar scenario where ground level has to be raised within RPA of a TPO Beech Ben. Still talking with architect / LA to finalise an acceptable solution. If what has been proposed is not acceptable, I'll be getting in touch with Laura at Geosynthetics - Cellweb® Tree Root Protection Let us know if you get a suitable solution?

I'm too old and wise now Jon! That's the sort of caper I might have got up to in my youth, but not anymore!! He only had 30 jumps under his belt so a fair novice for that kind of undertaking. On the one hand, a fine example of the madness of youth, on the the other..... Well, everybody dies, but not everybody really lives! He gets a fair slating in the comments here: Updated: Calgary balloon man Dan Boria speaks out; charges laid | Calgary | News

What a legend! VDYP-CSU-News

Approach with caution, dot the "i's" and cross the "t's." I had extreme hassles trying to engage with NWR over a TPO tree within falling distance of the line if it failed. Eventually got the NWR area safety bod and TO on site at same time to assess. NWR guy was a nightmare - I'm sure he only worked in increments of £500. £500/day for a bloke to stand on the track and tell us if a train was coming. £500/minute if any train was delayed (and that is not just the actual train involved, but every train back up the network which may be held or delayed as result of the 1 train being delayed - and he went to great length to explain how that multiplies exponentially! From the picture, it doesn't look like it would be wise to just "have a go and see what happens." Remember, if a train driver sees activity close to the line that they consider a hazard, they may stop the train and you would likely be pursued for financial recompense. I know it's all "what ifs", but that looks like a lose your shirt (and maybe your liberty) if it goes pear shaped.

:thumbup1:

Hi Jules, The issue of TPOs on boundaries was discussed at the recent Barcham's / Mynors seminar. It was suggested that, even if TPO'd, the neighbour (in this case the prospective developer) would have a right to abate a nuisance (overhanging branches / roots) without seeking consent regardless of TPO. Caused quite a stir amongst some of the audience! It's was alluded to briefly in the "Barcham seminar. Charles Mynors, Trees & the Law" thread starting at post 26 / 27. Not sure if there is an England / Scotland law difference??

Interesting stuff! Is there any info on DECC pages yet? I'll have a browse online later see what's out in the public domain. If you have any links I'd appreciate a point in the right direction 👍🏻

Nice one! I went into library earlier this year to get a download from the licensed access to BSI library only to find that, as one of the service reductions, the licence to BSI had been discontinued

That's what I'd been thinking, surely since it's not in the ownership of the prospective developer, it's not within their gift to "do" anything to the tree other than that which crosses the boundary. It's a funny old game, such knowledgable folks, using a common system, arriving at such different conclusions (mindful of the limited info.) We're all doomed!

Interested to understand more of the nature of the order. Sycamore - TPO, must be more to it??

Happy to help if possible.

Any chance you could post up a copy of the original TPO or tell us which local authority and the TPO number so we can have a look and see the original document??

Have a look at http://www.lynhertraining.com/about-us/ Gunnislake just out of Tavistock.

Admirable passion but I can't help thinking entrenchment is only ever going to present a barrier to objectivity and the ability to appreciate the situation from an alternative perspective. Dread to think what the "uncut" version was!!

Slightly modified quote sentence but.... No, we can't (or perhaps shouldn't) unless the the organisation is called the forestry commission?? (Tongue in cheek!)

I absolutely DO agree Roz that there are fantastic trees in private ownership that are subject to TPO and society should be grateful to the people that bear the cost and responsibility of that. I see 2 problems with TPO regs (as they currently exist) which could be improved upon (however distant and unrealistic that prospect may be.) 1. Whilst requiring consent for proposed works, there is nothing in the regs that can be enforced to ensure proactive maintenance / management. Recent example: a row of 10 x TPO'd lapsed pollard Lime. The re-pollard cycle neglected for +/- 30 years resulted in unsafe re-growth that had to be pollarded back to original head - not ideal but the only sensible solution (sanctioned by TO as a pragmatic approach to a problem not of our making). The the shortfall in TPO regs (in this case) would be the inability to highlight and enforce the pollard cycle at an earlier point in time (to the benefit of the tree and the wider public.) 2. If the tree is to be considered a public asset, who should pay for maintenance - the public or the owner? A distant, impossible aspiration but I'd suggest there'd be less antipathy towards TPOs from private owners if they weren't required to bear the financial burden and that, as described in 1, greater ability to manage important trees in a timely and effective manner would be achieved. A private land owner will always have a higher priority for their (usually) limited financial resources over and above maintaining a tree for the benefit of the public. That situation where resources are limited and demand is high will be recognised in both public and private sector - it just gives the impression of hypocrisy to expect it from one party whilst using it as an excuse for ever decreasing output in the other. The question is, the uproar we've all seen / heard / been involved in is passionately expressed whilst spending somebody else's money. I rather doubt it would be quite so enthusiastic if those who were shouting loudest were paying most. Maybe highlighting the (perceived) problems is the necessary path to trying to agree the possible solutions? I wouldn't expect there to be any realistic possibility of actually changing anything but it's a thought provoking exercise.