kevinjohnsonmbe

That's a strange response if I might say so and I'm not sure I've understood your meaning. I wasn't having a go at your first response, it's an open forum (with moderation of course) If you think my questions are irrelevant, that fair do's, can't answer for what you think is or isn't relevant, but I did say "these are the questions I'd ask." Did you say you're in Austria? So what the fines might be in Austria are relevant how? Other than in passing interest as a comparison? Thanks for the insight into the "real and commercial world" though - maybe it's peculiar to Austrian arb that as long as "something" gets planted all is well with the world. Maybe a row of turnips will solve the problem?

I'm not sure OP specified that it was a condition? Maybe it was just my reading of the post? Was it a condition or was it an expression of opinion?

Laughing at my phone. I had to explain it all to the wife who wanted to no what I was laughing at!

Ok, the other thing that occurred to me, it's possible the customer may have minimal or no further interaction with LA TO so it might not matter to them what the future relationship might be. You on the other hand might need future good working relationship with TO so might be tactful to withdraw from the debate?? Just a thought... Maybe just let the customer decide what they want to do and offer to do it if it suits you. To be honest, I don't know how 'binding' an email from the TO might be, I guess it depends on the wording / context of the email. Was it a 'direction' to replant (not sure if that's possible / binding) or was it an expression of what the TO would 'like to happen.' Hopefully, one of the current or former TO's on the forum might express an opinion.

Be interesting to see some of the learned, experienced responses. There's a couple of points that might help a detailed response. Who condemned the trees? Was there an application to local authority for removal of TPO'd trees? Did the response to the application approve removal and direct that replacements were required? Did it specify what the replacement should be - age, species etc and did it detail anytime frame on actively nurturing and protecting the replacement? Those are some of the questions if ask before venturing a response, there may be other practical / legal points others might ask Watching with interest!

I'll take a chance and post this one up - because it rocks!

Fair one! I feel wholly let down by DECC's inability to deliver previous (pie in the sky) promises.

It would be interesting to see the figures for road deaths attributed to excess speed in comparison to road deaths attributed to towing. I wonder which would be seen as needing the most urgent attention?

He's gone now, fox took him but he put up a fair fight and saved the girls! Fox came back for the girls later in the week, took em all bar 2. I had him though, tail pinned to the fence! Haven't seen any yet this year but as it gets colder they'll be back.

Takes us full circle back to your thought provoking early points about "value" versus (or compared to) "worth." And, so far as I can see, it depends upon who and where you are in the debate / discussion - landowner with liability or LA with amenity concerns. All I have been able to establish in my mind is that 1 party's position on "worth, value, amenity" could be completely at odds with another party's position and the well established tools for establishing / measuring a recognisable quantity (wether we call that value or worth) has the potential to be considered as highly subjective depending upon how much financial liability (for pruning / reduction / management) the landowner is required to assume depending upon the LA's position on amenity "value" or should it be "worth??"

Check to see if it includes your supervisor ticket as well, it's an exam but it's worth the pain just to get the operator and supervisor done in a oner!

Port bridge wing T23?

Fair observation!

I wouldn't argue against improving safety in any format, but I would ask - would a trailer MoT achieve it? What are the stats to SUPPORT the change? Would they stack-up sufficiently to warrant the additional admin, infrastructure and mechanisms for delivering it? (Considerable if the detail in the caravan club bulletin is accurate and believable?) Would they stack-up sufficiently to warrant the additional red tape, time and financial burden on the operator? Or would it just be another stealth tax applied to the decent, conscientious operator and ignored by the less diligent? If nothing else, it's another agenda item for the Eurocrats to debate (at great public expense), then for national parliaments and civil servants to prevaricate over, then for some european member states to apply and enforce and for others to blatantly ignore. Improve safety - yes of course, who wouldn't support that? Pointlessly increase bureaucracy, red tape, financial burden, logistical arrangements and down time for small business - well, no thanks but at least it keeps the fat cats bashing their gums and claiming their expenses.

Was worth a read! Thanks for highlighting it. You can bet the NFU and road hauliers association are 'fighting the good fight' for their groups.

Last Spring so quite low on stock but the trusted guard chickens keep a keen watch!

I'll be at Crantock!

Farcical from start to finish. Asking how much to charge for a (apparently) simple job - do what you want, it's your life. I find it hard to believe the whole thing isn't just a wind up. If it is, nice one, bang on! You whipped up a frenzy and must be laughing your ass off! If not, oh dear.....

Chuckle! Had me wondering for a minute....

That's a fair shout! It's just a guess based on what you describe, but it sounds like a rural rather than an urban environment you operate in. Sounds like a mutually agreeable situation as long as there is a trust and reliability relationship between the operative doing the job and the person doing the clear-up, and the customer is aware and content. Everyone wins and the rural nature of barter, mucking-in and cooperation continue. Good on ya!

I bought myself a wood burning hot tub. That's where my arb waste goes!

Absolutely right! That which is "in the public domain" will not include desk level correspondence between departments which would only be accessible via a FOI request.

Looking forward to that! (No, seriously!!)

I did but it was so meaningless I didn't think it worth repeating, it certainly didn't add any value to the discussion. "Regarding amenity value there are a number of systems and each has it's own benefits and disadvantages. We do not follow any particular system over another although we are starting to gather data to undertake CAVAT valuations of our trees for the future."

This might help: HM Revenue & Customs: Employment Status Indicator