HCR
-
Posts
859 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Classifieds
Tip Site Directory
Blogs
Articles
News
Arborist Reviews
Arbtalk Knot Guide
Gallery
Store
Freelancers directory
Everything posted by HCR
-
Look up cold filter plugging point here: EN 590 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
-
Nonsense. The Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 provides for the level of the duty of care owed to trespassers and it is not the same as for a visitor/invitee.
-
This relates to US law, but ours is substantially the same: And from LexisNexis So, they would be licensees, and this brings with it a lower duty of care than if they were invitees. Cover yourself with a risk assessment (usual standard of control measures etc), get them to sign it, give them a copy and film away. Delete the clip where the vicar cuts the verger's head off though.
-
And in related news.... Letter To MP - Environmental Audit Committee, Insects And Insecticides
-
Just a quick addendum - if you are not in England or Wales the law is different. Or at least it might be.
-
Go see a solicitor - you'll get a 30 min consultation for free anyway. There is a fair chance that your neighbour will be liable, at least partly. The fact that he was alerted to the danger beforehand, yet did nothing, is in your favour. Be very wary of spending money up front unless you really have to. The council does have the power (but not a duty) to get involved under Section 23 of the Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976
-
Yes, but at least no one is making a profit from it so all is well with the world.
-
There is nothing to stop your friend approaching the HA directly - it is he is suffering the adverse effect after all. Is it a HA owned property or a council house managed by one? If the latter, and other approaches fail, he can go to his local councillor armed with evidence of requests and responses.
-
As an alternative to kapok? natural kapok, organic natural fibre non allergy ethical fair trade
-
Vitality, surely On a more serious note, good series of posts. And what you describe is all that is required. I can see nothing wrong with QTRA, but I don't see that it is needed either. There isn't even a need to directly quantify the risk (whether it's high/medium/low, traffic lights or whatever). Specifying further action will keep the courts happy - re-inspect in 3 years; remove within 48 hours; fence off danger area and divert footpath etc etc. Then if the worst comes to the worst, you have to satisfy a court that on the balance of probability (or in extremis introduce a reasonable doubt) that a reasonably competent tree inspector wouldn't have recommended more precautionary work than you would have.
-
One key fact is that it is still expanding its abundance and frequency, occupying free space (in the ecological sense). This has two implications; firstly that it is highly unlikely to be native ( I think most people here accept that anyway) and secondly that the expansion has to come at a cost to other species. If those species are native, we need to consider the wider implications of sycamore presence.
-
It's based on his subjective assessment as a competent person. If it goes horribly wrong (i.e. a tree that passed the test subsequently goes on to fall over and kill someone) a number of points will be examined. 1. was an assessment of the tree carried out? 2. was the assessment an adequate one? 3. was the assessor competent to carry out that assessment? 4. was the tree defective in a manner that a reasonably competent tree inspector would have discovered? Assuming the answer to the first 3 questions is yes, the answer to the third one comes down to what the jurors/court believes on the basis of the evidence presented to them. I doubt the 1:10,000 thing would be hugely relevant to be honest, but I'm open to other opinions.
-
Effectively the events are mutually exclusive, as we are looking for the chances of one (and only one) tree failing. However, I know it's not that simple and I don't know the proper answer. Imagine a die with 10,000 sides. If you threw it 10,000 times would you get each number represented once? Highly unlikely. It would be exactly the same odds as any number not being repeated.
-
Hmm. That would give you the probability of all the trees failing. Assuming DaltonTrees knows what he's on about (and I'm sure he does), as you rightly predict that would be a very small number. Successive events: multiply the probabilities Independent events: add them i.e. 0.0001 + 0.0001......etc up to n=10,000 would give you a probability of 1.0
-
Yes, 100% chance that 0.8 of a tree will fail. I'm not sure how that would stack up in court though...if you think about it, using this system you can 'pass' 10,000 trees as 'safe', i.e. each tree has minimum of a 1:10,000 chance of failing. If one tree (or fewer) fails from the 10,000, you have met your criteria, based on empirical evidence. Now, what if that one tree had a serious discoverable defect? What if it killed someone?
-
What do you mean by alongside? Alternate rows? Alternate trees? Random trees dotted about? If it's a clear-fell site are you replanting or allowing natural regen? If the latter, something like Douglas fir if you can slot it into the more sheltered areas, and manage subsequent respacing to suit your objectives. Or to be different, sessile oak? Depends what you want the timber for.
-
When I did my masters (14 years ago!) I wrote a piece on the sycamore, addressing some of the points you raise. If you PM me your email address I'll send you a scan of it, though it might be a few days/a week before I get a chance. It was no academic masterpiece, but you might find it useful.
-
So that means that there is an 80% chance that one tree you pass as safe (within the scope of the job) will fail anyway
-
Other common law jurisdiction judgements are persuasive, rather than binding, on our courts. The Privy Council is the final court of appeal for (various overseas territories, the Commonwealth for simplicity) and is binding on the lower courts of those countries to which it applies (I'm pretty sure that Australia is one of those).
-
Surely QTRA is numerical rather than statistical As a system I don't think it's any better or any worse than any other. Or any more or less necessary than any other... Any system will come down to a subjective view, which must be reasonable. To complicate things, this would be an objective test in a court - the view must be reasonable when compared that of the reasonable tree inspector, not the reasonable person (i.e. juror). We can't really 'test' trees, however much we might think we can. We can spot something as dangerous at the extreme end of the scale, but it just gets woolier as we move towards the safe end of the spectrum. We apply opinion and hope that we don't get caught out. Having a system, whatever that is, reduces the likelihood of being caught out if only for introducing repeatability.
-
:thumbup:
-
This should clarify the rules: Environment Agency - Spreading sewage sludge on land
-
It can do, but not hugely. If it gets hot enough, some compounds/elements will vaporise and go up the chimney. Some small particles will go up on the draught as well. Stove factors aside, the composition of wood from a particular species will produce a fairly constant level of ash.
-
Glyphosate-what you need to know
HCR replied to Tony Croft aka hamadryad's topic in Forestry and Woodland management
Broadly speaking, I'm against the use of herbicides. I accept some uses are close to unavoidable though. However, that article was seriously flawed. Where was the dosage information? It mentioned figures like 500mg/l - what does that mean? Blood concentration? A one-off dose? A daily does? An hourly dose? Bad science... -
Was a bat survey carried out before work commenced?
