kevinjohnsonmbe

Kind of agree, if the entity 'asking' for the report is unable to properly articulate what it is they want, why they want it and therefore what its parameters should be... Then really, they shouldn't be surprised if they don't get what they want. Are you advocating the purely academic pathway into "consultancy" for want of a better word then Jules? There are some obvious and real workplace difficulties with that approach. The debate was played out quite well in the recent AA webinar where Mr Barrell suggested that progressing from practical experience (in the trees) and then onwards to "consultancy" was a desirable progression route - and just about all the others (who, coincidentally, hadn't taken the practical route seemed to adopt the purely academic route as the preferred option. The difficulty with purely academic "consultants" (as with many other trade 'surveyors') may be that they simply don't have a grasp of the practical implications of achieving the recommendations they are proposing. 2 very recent examples - a contractor pal turned up to implement the tree report recommendations of a surveyor only to find that (a) some of the trees simply were not where they were recorded on the site plan and (b) some of the recommendations (albeit QTRA qualified) where absolutely unjustifiable seemingly illogical, and apparently entirely counter to the QTRA methodology. The second example I'd set out is that of a TO suggesting a 2m height reduction for TPO'd trees adjacent to a building - the actual effort (time = cost) of achieving this far exceeded the rationale for doing it. Granted, that's only 2 examples but perhaps supports the case that to be a surveyor with absolutely no practical experience can certainly have its pitfalls. Bit of an aside, but I've had the same in other trades - double glazing 'surveyor' set out the costs associated with a job and the time to fit at the quote stage - lads turn up to actually do the job and it was clearly apparent that the 'surveyor' has comprehensively underestimated the time / resources (cost) required. Not my problem - contract was signed. As for 'tree surgeons' doing tree reports - might not be the path for some, but that's not to say the 2 are mutually exclusive. Neither, IMHO, are reporting AND contracting mutually exclusive. I'd go so far as to say, in many circumstances, they are actually complimentary and there is only a 'conflict' if the proposed operational work is anything other than unbiased, professional recommendations as laid out in the report. You pays your money, you takes your chance. Cheapest is not always best value but where someone wants cheap they can suffer the consequences at their leisure. Agree your point about calling it what people naturally think it is. I don't consider it a conflict if a report proposes work which is then quoted for. The report details what is required regardless of who will actually do it. It's for the 'customer' to decide who / where they want to spend their money. Just like any other walk of life. If they cut corners, make a bad choice, fail to appreciate the complexities, that's on them. Tree reports are not exactly 'difficult' if you can read. Some 'tree surgeons' are perfectly well capable of producing reports that absolutely would stand the test of a courtroom. Similarly, there is a parallel in the architect / architectural consultant domain. Architect is a chartered profession whereas architectural consultant is someone that can draw and produce plans. They both ply the same trade and it is for the customer to decide if they want the real deal or the "talks, walks, looks' like an architect but can't actually use the stand alone term - architect.

That's like a regular conversation in the Tamar Valley! Not sure if this link will work but it made me laugh: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=761358960907376 If link doesn't work try google search for: 1975: Nationwide: Noddy's Stable (just up the road from us)

Absolutely STUNNING sky scape this evening as the sun was setting. Photo wouldn't have done it justice but it was a genuine pleasure to behold! Maybe we've done the planet a decent bit of 'good' by such significantly reduced aviation. On a bit of a tangent - can't help but think there are more birds generally around this year than I've noticed in previous years. Might be my imagination, or confirmation bias, or just pure coincidence. Anyone agree or is it a touch of madness?

“Boris may be a subscriber too Paul? If he is, I’d want some of his business - if it’s not all staffed away on painters & decorators 😂

Certainly not being facetious Paul! I might have a tendency to seek the 'lighter' side of some situations but there is no humour intended from the previous post(s) - I don't think the subject warrants it. What I would say - by way of adding context to the question about whether that LA TO was AA accredited or not - is that it was purely rhetorical. I don't think there is any doubt that the LA 'output' from this subject application is sub-optimal and I'm sure many will be aware of the divisions of responsibility between TO & PO. That said, if a TO was aware that a PO was routinely issuing poorly considered / constructed DNs then why wouldn't they take a minute to have the discussion and seek to correct / improve business output? Having watched the AA webinar - the one about improving 'professionalism' in the sector - where (it seemed) all bar 1 of the panel and the majority of viewers submitting comments were TOs bemoaning the woeful state of contractors, it is example(s) such as this (which are not uncommon in discussion threads here) which tend to present the other side of the coin which was pretty much notable by it's exclusion from the webinar discussion. This is a clear example of unprofessional output by public sector staff that are supposed to be suitably qualified, trained and experienced - possibly even AA accredited. Perhaps heading too far off the original track so not really worth too much effort at this point. There must be something we can just have a yarn about without disagreeing 😂 Roll on show season again I'll get the beers in!

Understood. If it turns out to be an ADB resilient tree then definitely worth retaining. On the other hand, if the Ash shows sign of succumbing to ADB it wouldn't hurt to leave the pine in situ for a year or 2 whilst you wait to see how the Ash bears up. If the Ash loses the fight against ADB, it may need to be reduced / removed anyway. 🤞🏻

Remove the obstructing tree first then remove your target tree. I like simplicity! 😂

You remember that from ‘81? I can hardly remember what I did last week 😂

SE Cornwall

First of the year! Bit early, maybe off the back of the recent unseasonably warm spell. Hope he’s got his thermals for this week!

Nowt to do with me Guv - the tree owner arranged for this outfit to collect the timber from a recent job. Owner / operator doesn’t seem to worry too much about any of the ‘usual’ administrative details associated with operating a vehicle on the public highway. The improvised braking system was notably innovative!

😂 I was just typing something similar 😂

Are you looking at Withams or a private purchase? Direct Sales - MOD Sales, Military Vehicles & Used Ex MOD Land Rovers for Sale WWW.MOD-SALES.COM We sell ex MOD Land Rovers, Military Vehicles, Earth Moving Plant in our online auctions, tenders and sales. I often look at Withams stock list and wonder if I might buy something. I get the impression they are well established and will have plenty of experience on the legalities / technicalities of converting ex-mod to road registered. I very nearly went down the RB44 route but didn’t get much further than research.

See the viaduct in the background K? A marvel of human endeavour in its own right. Some sensational pieces of granite in the coins.

I really couldn’t decide if they were waiting for a scrap run or gathered pre restoration. Be helluva job to renovate but I’m never surprised by the lengths some people might go to.

Saw this little collection whilst walking the dog this afternoon. Not sure if they’ve been batched up waiting restoration. They’ve only recently appeared.

Dark.....? Not facetious then 😂 That other post may have been interpreted as being facetious - I’d suggest it was more tangential than facetious. But perhaps if an organisation that ‘purports’ to advance professional standards focussed more upon those elements that blatantly lack professionalism instead of seeking to involve itself in the business of those that don’t subscribe to its hollow mantras we all might see some progress. 😂 Not to mention commenting on something that is later claimed not to have even read.... Well, you get the point I expect.

Highly dubious practice, pretty much frowned upon and with potential to generate considerable bad press for instigators - usually development sites working to a deadline which includes nesting period so they net the trees before nesting season to prevent birds getting in there which would delay felling. Not ‘illegal’, rather a pretty low handed method of staying within the letter - if not the spirit - of the current legislation. As ever, where big money is involved, there will always be someone willing to ‘bend’ the guidance to achieve their aim. Netting does have one potential drawback though - if birds get in and get trapped in, there could be a case to argue that it could / should have been foreseen and that there is a degree of negligence if birds die as a conseq Of the netting being there. As Mick points out though - difficult to find an example of an actual prosecution. Just a method employed by total shitbags.

Agreed Paul, it’s the sort of detail that might be expected as an informative ‘note.’ But in this example it is listed as condition 3 whereas the ‘informative notes’ follow at 1 - 7. The informative notes seem excessive esp as note 1 specifically details that conditions (presumably including 3) are ‘enforceable.’ Is Kirklees TO AA accredited?

The “no burning on site” condition struck me as ‘odd’ too. It may or may not be an option but I can’t see how it can be a condition. I’d have thought that would be EA business unless there is some other byelaw - but even if there was, not really appropriate as a condition.

It’s been an interesting thread. So far as I can tell, there’s only 1 brand that has company and dealer contributions to the thread. You can read a LOT into that - IMHO. (I’m 3 years in with a GM ArbTrak 150)

I’m not so sure the LA ‘covered themselves in glory’ in the DN either! The application form states ‘splits in 2 at 3m’ or something like that.... The conditional approval says “...Clean out crown removing any dead, dangerous, hazardous or split branches and stubs; while maintaining the tree’s structural integrity and natural form...” Dead is exempt, dangerous/ hazardous might have been and as for ‘split’ well that would have made for an interesting discussion if the applicant had reduced the tree to 3m on the basis that the application form stated it ‘split in 2 at 3m,’ Structural integrity and (remaining) natural form would have been undeniably achieved 😂

The owners statement in support of the previous TPO application is legendary! “Trunk splits in 2 at 3 meters” and of course, the ‘clear and present danger’ presented by the tree to this, and neighbouring, properties. If ever you needed a mallet to beat them up over the price with - they’ve given you a gold plated one! By their own hand, they’ve potentially written a £2-20k bargaining chip into the asking price.

Ticked or tickled Mick?