Chris at eden

HS2 will run at 300km/h apparently. Quicker or as quick as anything other than the Bullet Train apparently. Its the current intercity trains we have that run at 200km/h.

Long tail I should say - before someone corrects me.

Decent website is important in my opinion. Adwords works well for me but it takes time to get it right and can be expensive if you get it wrong. If you are going down the website route then read up on SEO and PPC advertising.

Its a very specific long chain keyword which I am guessing no one else uses so it will be top. It will only work though if someone types that into Google. The trick is to figure out what your customers are typing in, not what you would type.

No worries mate. As I said, I have tried to be fair and sensible from day one but I think this is partly because I split my time between TO and consultant and so I see both sides. I can imagine TOs get pretty wound up when they get constant flak from all sides. My background in my 20s was also as a climber which I think helps when dealing with contractors. I remember working in a tree in the 90s (when did I get old) and the TO had consented a height reduction of 50% (a bad start straight away). He then stood on site telling me while I up the tree that I must prune to a side branch that was 1/3rd the diameter of the leader that I was reducing. He could not get his head around the fact that those side branches don't exist with that level if reduction!!! The bloke I was subbing for was having a meltdown. The one I see now is a condition saying that felling must be carried out in accordance with 3998!!! Some TOs are not the best but some are really good, its the same in the private sector though. I tend to include a condition covering max cut diameters on all of my decision notices to avoid that issue with lifting. On the subject of objectivity, I started my Expert Witness training with Bond Solon just before Xmas, I did the report writing and court room skills days. On the report writing day the trainer said when you write a report you should consider that if you were writing it for the other side, would you come to a different conclusion. If the answer is yes then you have a major issue. Its obvious really but that is that major problem with many of the reports I see, you can tell they have been directed by the client.

Just a couple of point to address. You don't need an engineers report for light structural damage, just written evidence an appropriate expert. You would qualify under that heading but the resident wouldn't. As a TO I've accepted written evidence for this type of thing from competent tree surgeons or building contractors. I have also provided written evidence in a report form for light damage. Its not the authority though is it. Its on the one app form which is a legal requirement and provided by the government. The authority are jumping through the same hops as you. If they accept sub-standard apps then they could be criticised for it. MPs enquiries are pretty standard when folk don't get what they want with their trees. As I said, you could provide that and for less than £400. Subsidence is a different issue altogether. Again, this isn't down to the LA. Its on the direction of the government ultimately. The agent yes (if they are competent). Not the applicant, they are not objective and don't have the necessary skills to look at the all options in most cases. As above No I get what you are saying. But the LPA also insist that you supply technical report and plans for planning apps but don't insist on the use of a particular builder. TO's come in for a lot of flak and yes some can be a pain in the arse, some of it is a bit harsh though. When I have my TO hat on I try to be fair and sensible but not all do. I still get some folk moaning about me, its just the job.

You will need a report if you are mentioning damage within the statement of reasons otherwise the LPA TO is likely to refuse it or possibly not even validate it. Even if you get the report they may well refuse but having better supporting info will increase your chances on appeal. Additionally, the report could advise you on engineering solutions to fix the drive and whether or not they are feasible. Looking at the levels Cellweb is probably out if digging is to be avoided but you may get away with using Rootbridge - expense though - 4 x the cost of Cellweb for that type of site.

ps. I suppose you can differentiate between those which are providing support and those which are not though, and assume that is what Paul is getting at.

Not just Duncan Slater. Mattheck said it years ago, something which he was pretty miffed about last time I saw him speak.

It will only really make the tree more safe if you are addressing a defect. I still think the top looks like it is retrenching from the pics, I would keep an eye out for Merip or Kretz. wouldn't be a bad idea if you are unsure on what to do. You shouldn't really be thinning and reducing at the same time as reduction is quite stressful for trees.

Agreed. Agreed again. And again, I should have made that clear. When I was discussing reduction as a percentage it was in relation to Frank Rinn's research on the effect of crown reduction on loading. Not as a specification.

As Matty said if you are looking to reduce sail area then a light end weight reduction would be better - if the tree needs it that is! Thinning won't really make much difference to sail. Doesn't have to be huge - 10% reduction of the extension will reduce loading at the base by 20%. The tree is multi-stemmed from about 5m so the rubbing branches may be important for support so (again as Matty said) you should probably keep them. It looks like the top might be retrenching slightly - have you checked the base for fungi?

👍 👍

Yes and disproportionate to the actual level of risk, you can find that in the NTSG guidance as well relating to trees (rather than lakes), but its not the same as trying to say health and safety is over the top.

Its not pollarding either - I agree though, its a no.