kevinjohnsonmbe

You didn't mention the "down" side to it Pat!

It doesn't, but it does enrich your life. I did say it wouldn't suit everyone but it works for me. I also spend 2 days a week (Thu/Fri) at home with my little girl because you can't put a price on the value of that!

Not really the case.... Pick the job, pick the customer, walk away if you need to. I know it won't work for everyone, but I'd rather crack on with some work at home than go out and compete for a job that's not worth doing. I'd rather leave the downward competition on price to those that need to fight for it. I've quoted for a job and lost out to a company that had to travel >100 miles daily to the site, didn't have the benefit of local disposal of chip / timber etc. I can't understand how they broke even, they were well under what I'd take as bottom line and had considerably higher overheads... Crack on, I'll walk the dogs while the sun shines!

and you were asking if Dave if he worked for LA as I was typing!

Yes, I get it. £, ultimately, is the only common unit of denomination (esp for the home / land owner - wether it be value added or liability added.) But I'm sure the cloud gazers will be offended by that - and I can't see LA TOs buying the logic. That's part of what troubles me about the phrase "Amenity Value" it means different things to different people and nobody seems to be able to find a common ground.

Honey Fungus David? I've been trawling manual of wood decays, field guide to mushrooms and AA fungus on trees field guide. Just couldn't seem to find a match. It's on a lawned area with Rhododendron nearby and a old stump just visible in the pic.

I can't find anything that matches close enough to give me any confidence.

No, I'm all over it Dave!

And, I've just realised I'm a duffer because you sign off your posts 'Jules.' So, thanks for starting the thread Jules!

Thanks for 'taking the plunge' DT (sorry, don't know your real world name!) I've been a bit flat out today so hadn't had chance to start a thread. I've just crash-read Mynors thoughts on assessment of amenity (The Law of Trees Forests and Hedges 2nd Ed section 22.2.6 p570-572) and requested the definition of “Amenity value” (of a tree/s) as it might be understood, interpreted and applied by my local authority - I'll post that up if I get something useful back. I'm still thinking through what I want to say (truth be told, I'm not sure I know yet ) It's interesting, if I've interpreted it as intended, that I think your main thrust is determining a notional financial value. And I'd agree, that may be the main focus for the home owner - after all, money is the bottom line which will often over ride conservation / ecology ideals. I'm interested in how the definition of amenity value might differ between the home owner, the local authority and the arborist. So, if a home owner (or a group of neighbours) is troubled by what may be perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be a hazard / nuisance, but the LA deems amenity value (perhaps in a Conservation Area) how is a 'value' assessed and what mechanism would be effective to take positives (eco, visual, biodiversity, general pleasure etc etc) and offset negatives (worry, light levels, leaves, sap, perceived hazard etc etc) to achieve a tangible output? And should it be multiplied by the number of people potentially gaining benefit and divided by the number of people having a negative experience. And how do you measure one person's pleasure against another's distress? And then, as if that isn't difficult enough, should there be a different scale for urban and rural environments? My head hurts!

I haven't suggested M is the principal cause Tony, I said my initial prognosis was wind and later considered M a possible contributory factor. I didn't feel the need to defend my (earlier, based upon the presented information) view that removal might be preferred to retention (if I was the homeowner.) That's just what my view would be if I lived there and it doesn't need anymore justification than that. There will be those that like to see (and live with) large trees in small spaces, but it's not my preference. It's a little off topic (for the original poster) and maybe better suited to a separate thread, but mention (both for and against retention in this case) of "amenity value" has got me thinking and it's what I was looking for earlier; has there been a discussion of the definition / calculation of amenity value previously? I seem to be seeing the term used as a fairly blaze catch-all without due consideration to what it may have originally been coined for. Is there, for example, a balancing factor - value to one person minus nuisance to another equals "value?" That's a discussion I'd be interested in. And also, how might the rural definition of amenity value vary to the urban one? I'd appreciate any views and happy to start a separate thread if (mods?) it's more appropriate?

And all worthy of great respect David. I guess the sad reflection is, it's only those of us that try and do their best that would even have felt a small tinge of discomfort with the broad sweep comments that prickled me a little.

A bold (misguided) statement.... You may have assumed from pic 1 that it is curbing, but pic 3 should have illustrated that it is, in fact, a granite topped retaining wall installed during the major church refurbishment in the early 1800's. I wonder which came first, the tree or the wall? I initially considered wind loading to be the primary cause of failure, it was only after a little thought and consideration of the broader environmental situation that I concluded it was more likely to be a combination of wind (direction), root decay and restricted root plate development. You can take your dozens of top consultants and pick your best, then ask him / her (based upon the pictures provided) to validate your statement "not one iota." Call me when you're ready......

David, we haven't met and I wouldn't want to cause offence, most of all because I hold your posts in very high regard. I've been pondering your posts No. 24 & 28 (industry wide knee jerk reactions to fruiting bodies and the majority of people don't have a scooby (loose quotes)) and it troubles me. There will be some that don't have the benefit of your knowledge and experience (yet) but I'm not sure those labels ought to be hung around the majority. Purely by chance while looking for something else earlier, I happened across a post entitled "Grifola Frondosa" by David Oakman dated 29 Sep 08 where you posted details of an invasive inspection and proposed a crown reduction. User BatiArb had a very contrary opinion and articulated a counter course of action. That set of discussion threads looks spookily similar (in some regards) to the discussion threads in this post..... Except, you seem to have adopted a diametrically opposed position now, to that which you held then. Now if your knowledge and experience have developed to such a degree over the past decade or so that's brilliant, but wouldn't it be more appropriate to allow a similar 'development' of knowledge and experience to your industry cohorts rather than assuming they haven't got a scooby? I hope that isn't interpreted as having a dig, it's not meant that way. There is a thirst for knowledge out here and your posts in this forum are held in very high regard (certainly by me.)

Here's yesterdays churchyard failure, not great pics but I was rushing to get back for the roast lamb. Very fortunate this one went inwards not outwards over the road and into the houses. Nothing like the amount of fruiting body as in some of the previous pics which are offered as examples of not necessarily needing removal. Each is an individual case of course, but I wouldn't necessarily see it as an industry wide knee jerk reaction - it's the homeowners choice of course. If I lived there (not wanting to get into the "which came first, the house or the tree" debate) I probably wouldn't want that tree in my small, roadside front garden.

I took a call from the Vicar yesterday, mature Beech, roadside raised position, failed. Very fortunately, into church yard not across road and into opposite houses. TPOd as in churchyard, LA survey program. Will take better pics today and post later. Merip on stem, this very recent failure might add current "physical example" to the debate above. Based only on the info / opinions available above, I'm feeling like I'd sit in the "remove" camp. Related, but slightly tangential, a closed churchyard, trees under LA survey program, TPO'd, large tree fails. Who bears responsibility for cost of remedial work: Church council or LA? I have to confirm with LA on Monday but appreciate any input to inform the discussion.

Did the stove come with a complimentary 12 month subscription to the nearest manicure salon? What a chimp that man sounds. Good old Daily Mail quality, intellectual journalism as always....