Chris at eden
-
Posts
1,434 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Classifieds
Tip Site Directory
Blogs
Articles
News
Arborist Reviews
Arbtalk Knot Guide
Gallery
Store
Calendar
Freelancers directory
Posts posted by Chris at eden
-
-
37 minutes ago, Treespasser said:
Hi all,
I just wanted to post a thread to get others' opinions on this topic, as I'm sure there's variation out there.
I've been a sub contracting climber for 8 years now (and consultant for a short while) here in the UK and have never come to a conclusion.
As a self employed climber or groundsman charging 'X' amount as a day rate, you'd obviously get X for the standard 8/9 hours worked that day.
But what if you work 4/5 hours... would you still expect your day rate?
For instance, if you worked hard and got the job done in good time.
(I know this depends on circumstance, such as if my employers job got cancelled last minute, I would not expect X amount if a replacement job couldn't be found)
My current main employer normally lays another job on us if we get the main job done in good time, squeezing the most out of us. (This aggravates the sh*t out of me)
I used to be in the same situation during the 90's when climbing. Swings and roundabouts he used to say, even resorted to get us painting his fences sometimes. In the end we stopped rushing to get the jobs done and just did them in the time we had been allotted. Pretty annoying.
37 minutes ago, Treespasser said:But also, if you're a self employed consultant working for larger companies, say you book the day off to do a survey they asked you to do and it takes you 2 hours to do the inspection and 1 hour to type it up. Do you charge 3 hours and lose the rest of the day... or charge the whole day because you booked it out for that survey? This happens to me quite a lot.
When use a subbey I agree a fee upfront (usually a day rate) with them and then pay them that amount. If they get it done quick the day is theirs. Problem is, they can tend to rush it and send it back with loads of typos! Annoying from the other perspective, you cant win.
What sort of consultancy do you do?
37 minutes ago, Treespasser said:All constructive comments welcome and look forward to reading what other subbies and employers do.
Cheers!
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, roythegrass said:
UPDATE
Firstly thanks for all the input.
I have this afternoon received an email from the council formally granting consent for the works as specified in the application. (A month after the 'decision by' date!)
One minor issue in the conditions states " ...the works for which such consent is granted may only be carried out once..." A layman could read this as preventing any future pruning to the tree. Given the decay in the trunk and that in x years time the tree will have grown sufficiently to necessitate further pruning then surely this can't be right. Perhaps my interpretation is wrong.
As Ed said, its one time pruning for that application. You sometimes have to spell it out to people to be on the safe side if you are unsure. I've never put the one time pruning on as a condition as its not really needed. If anything you would put it as informative text as standard.
I have conditioned maximum cut sizes for crown lifting in the past which is a bit over the top as crown lifting is specified within a British Standard. If you don't though some tree surgeons (not many) will take out entire limbs and call it crown lifting, and then say 'I don't have the British Standard as it over £100'.
Sounds like they are just trying to be clear on what is consented.
-
1
-
-
On 04/01/2020 at 17:05, kevinjohnsonmbe said:
Maybe a broader question Gary....
Why don’t TOs ‘grow up’ to become POs and beyond?
Some do but there are only so many head of service jobs and a lot of other departments with staff that want to move up.
On 04/01/2020 at 17:05, kevinjohnsonmbe said:If we recognise that the role is generally that of a junior civil servant with limited authority and influence but that it exists in a fairly rare hierarchical system where career progression is actively promoted and available, why are TOs not embracing career progression within LAs?
As above
On 04/01/2020 at 17:05, kevinjohnsonmbe said:
Id wager it’s more common for TOs to exploit opportunities for CPD whilst in the role as preparation for moving into the private sector than it is for them to progress within local government.
Nothing wrong with CPD, in fact quite the opposite. Its no different to private consultants going on CPD and then moving to another company or an LPA for that matter.
There are more consultancy jobs in the private sector than there are head of service jobs and chief exec jobs in the LA. You can earn more as an expert witness than you can as a head of service and the work is more interesting in my opinion.
I do both sides and the private sector is a lot less hassle and frustration - contentious I know but that is my experience.
-
Bjerkandera adusta - I think.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, JonnyRFT said:
No offence taken. I’m often wrong and try to learn from mistakes but my original answer stemmed from the trees size compared to its location. Judging from the picture I would say there’s 9m to the closest property and the impact of the removal of this tree would be tiny. I would also hazard a guess that the tarmac is durable enough at this point to accommodate any further movement in the future after the stump is treated. There’s also a neighbouring tree (maybe Ash?) that may regulate moisture content of the soil over time.
But, I was unaware of the 12.5m zone of influence. Could this be the case for the tree in question considering it relatively small size?
Hello mate
Thanks for taking it in the spirit it was intended.
The ZOI is calculated by cross referencing the mature height of the tree species and then multiplying by:
- 1.25 for high water demand trees.
- 0.75 moderate water demand trees.
- and, 0.50 for low water demand trees.
It uses mature height as trees grow and so you have to consider the long term implications. The mature height of Hawthorn in the standard is 10m so the calculation is 10 x 1.25 =12.5m. That tree is at about 10m anyway so yes 12.5m would be about right.
If you look at something like Birch - this is low water demand with a height of 14m - so 14m x 0.50 = ZOI of 7m. Bigger tree with a smaller ZOI. Or, Wellingtonia with a height of 30m and moderate water demand - 30m x 0.75 = ZOI of 22.5m, so a moderate water demander but with a larger ZOI just due to its size. Then Hybrid Black Poplar has a ZOI of 35m as it is big and has high water demand.
You can view the list in NHBC Chapter 4.2 which you should be able to find on Google.
As Gary said its not perfect and there are instances where damage can occur outside of these numbers but its the main source of info we have at present. There is a famous quote by Giles Biddle which goes along the lines of 'the only predictable thing about tree related subsidence is its unpredictability'. Sums it up pretty well.
Cheers
-
1
-
1
-
1 minute ago, Gary Prentice said:
Just trying to keep you on your Toes Chris! And I did concur with your ZOI/soil/foundation comment
Cheers mate. Hope you are well.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:
To be fair Chris I think that the Water Demand tables came about more due to the requirements of the insurance industry than being based on scientific research and evidence, in that trees frequently associated with subsidence were rated in the higher categories.
It doesn't actually relate to water uptake. It's used to calculate the distance at which trees tend to cause damage based on observation. Water uptake on its own isn't sufficient to cause an issue as you know. You have to tie it in with the other observations made on site, again as you know.
My point was that alluding to the fact it wont take up enough water to be an issue is wrong in this situation. The tree is 5m from the building and has a ZOI of 12.5m. In the right conditions that could be an issue.
-
On 23/12/2019 at 10:07, Dbarnard said:
Hi I was looking to remove a 30 year old hawthorn from the back of my garden.
How do you know its 30 years old?
On 23/12/2019 at 10:07, Dbarnard said:The tree is around 10m high and 6m wide. I've attached pictures. The tree is next to a tarmac foot path and around 1m from that is a hedge with stone risers and 1m from that is a blocked paved carpark. There is a property 5m to the left of it.
Ive been reading online about ground heave and it has me very worried. From the facts I've gathered.
Subsidence is a lot more common than heave but under the right conditions there could be a risk.
On 23/12/2019 at 10:07, Dbarnard said:The property was built in 1979. So the tree was planted after the property was built.
Assuming that the tree is 10 years younger than the house then the risk of heave should be low. I wouldn't assume anything from the photo though, if you have concerns get it surveyed properly.
On 23/12/2019 at 10:07, Dbarnard said:I'm trying to work out if the soil is clay because I've heard that can be bad as it can swell when the tree I removed. Do you know how I can test this? Dug a whole by the tree this morning. Its black and slightly sticky. Worried about it because i know for certain that around 5m from the tree back towards my house theres a patch of clay.
Not all clays are shrinkable. To be shrinkable, at least 35% of the soils make up (just the solid parts) must be fine clay. You can get this tested at a lab using the Atterberg Limit Test, its not cheap though. You could also look at the online BGS viewer to get an idea. Its not 100% accurate but I use it for mortgage reports as long as there is no pre-existing damage.
On 23/12/2019 at 10:07, Dbarnard said:I'm trying to gauge what steps I need to do to remove the tree. I have read online a gradual reduction of 1/3 a year can work? And when the tree is eventually a stump it can be grinded out. I've read that this means the soil can recover per year.
I know this is out there in a BRE practice note but it doesn't stack up for me. If you have the tree removed in one go or in stages it will recover to the same level if there is a persistent moisture deficient. Other opinions may differ.
On 23/12/2019 at 10:07, Dbarnard said:Behind the tree it's pure tarmac I.e theres no soil. But I'm paranoid what's beneath the tarmac. One picture I've attached is where the tarmac on the boarder has slightly raised. It isn't huge but it has me worried the roots have propagated out further.
There will be soil and roots under the tarmac most likely.
On 23/12/2019 at 10:07, Dbarnard said:If and when the stump is removed I guess I need to contact the council to repair the tarmac.
It minor damage, I doubt the council will see that as a priority.
On 23/12/2019 at 10:07, Dbarnard said:Just looking for advice really. I've contacted an alborist to see what they have to say but just trying to gather information.
No one can advise you with the info provided. You will need to get it looked at properly by a tree consultant if you want anything worthwhile.
On 23/12/2019 at 10:07, Dbarnard said:Edit: had another look at the soil I think it is loam/clay you can feel grit in some bits but you get the odd bit that is silky smooth. I've had a look on a soil map of the uk and that matches with that. The soil map says theres a slight impedance to drainage.
No comment - it's second hand info.
On 23/12/2019 at 10:07, Dbarnard said:Hoping this is only really an issue for pure clay soil?
Its not. I've seen subsidence on Mercia Mudstone and Pennine Coal Measures.
Again, if you have concerns then get it looked at properly.
On 23/12/2019 at 10:07, Dbarnard said:
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, JonnyRFT said:
I wouldn’t be so concerned about the soil. Its demand on water will be relatively small compared larger species of tree that can cause issues with clay soil.
Hawthorn is a high water demand tree with a zone of influence of 12.5m so this comment doesn't really stack up. No offence intended, just pointing out the facts.
-
14 hours ago, Mark J said:
My point was that just about any vegetation growing next to a building will dessicate the soil beyond 300mm, even grass can delve 1500mm deep. So tree or no tree, there's likely to be an ongoing saga.
Soils can desiccate to 500mm with no vegetation present at all, just from the drying action of the sun. If you really do have 300mm foundations then it may also be prone to settlement so may not be subsidence at all. It would be worth doing some monitoring to find out.
-
1
-
-
First set of building regs came out in the 1960's. Not sure what the minimum foundation depth would be at that time but I don't think it would be 300mm, that sounds more like 1860's.
-
18 hours ago, Mark Bolam said:
It's bullshit Mick, makes no difference at all.
I'm not sure how anyone ever thought that it made any sense at all. if you remove the tree the soil will recover if there is a persistent moisture deficit. If you remove it in stages it will recover gradually but still to the same level. Hence the same damage.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Beardie said:
Anyway, the most likely way for a tree to cause damage is through 'heave' resulting from the roots drawing water from near the foundations.
You can't get heave from trees drawing moisture from foundations, that would result in subsidence if conditions are right. You can only get heave if there is a pre-existing soil moisture deficit and you then remove the tree leading to an increase in soil moisture content and subsequent swelling of a shrinkable clay soil. Subsidence is a lot more common than heave.
12 hours ago, Beardie said:You only get that with clay soils,
Not all clay soils are shrinkable but the site in in London so there is a good chance it is shrinkable.
12 hours ago, Beardie said:and even then 9m is a very long way for roots to go. I reckon you'll be OK.
It depends on the type of cherry. Zone of influence for a wild cherry is 12.75m so 9m isn't a long way.
The concerns of the OP are justified in my opinion, I would recommend getting a tree report to identify risk, the mortgage company will probably insist on it. You would need a lot more info to make an informed decision or even an educated guess.
-
11 hours ago, Jack Hobbs said:
Hi all,
My front driveway has large mature tree in the middle of the driveway, which has a TPO.
I applied to the council to drop other half of the payment, (about 45% was already done by the previous owner, to allow me to park 2 vehicles on my driveway.
Is the driveway existing at is full width or did the application involve the extension or replacement of the driveway. Or, did you extend the driveway without detailing it on the plans?
11 hours ago, Jack Hobbs said:The council approved the application, did not impose any conditions about the tree.
That would be bizarre if you are replacing the driveway as well. If it just the crossover and outside of the RPA then they may not need to as there would be no impact if the drive surface isn't changed. You may also not need planning if the road is unclassified although this depends on who you ask. I have a colleague that works as an LPA planning manager and he is adamant that you don't need planning for a dropped kerb as it forms part of the highway. His opinion is that what you do need consent for is the bit that connects the crossover to the private property, not the kerb itself, and this is only for classified roads (there is conflicting info about this on other LPA website though). I have seen crossovers done under PD though and subject to planning in different areas. You will always need the consent of highways though, unless its a private road. Are you sure it is planning consent you have and not just permission from highways? I have come across this misinterpretation.
11 hours ago, Jack Hobbs said:I have recently applied to the council to fell the protected tree, which was refused on amenity grounds.
If it has visual amenity they are within their rights to do so, there are other issues to consider though. They should address your reasons for removal in the decision notice, not just say no because of a negative impact on visual amenity.
11 hours ago, Jack Hobbs said:They also acused me of damaging the tree by parking vehicles on my driveway, and said they would take me to court if the tree dies or is unstable.
If they have given consent for a driveway at some point that would be pretty strong mitigation as long as you haven't done further works without consent. Even resurfacing driveways potentially need planning consent unless you discharge the surface water on site. You can replace driveways under PD if you discharge surface water on site but PD doesn't supersede TPOs.
11 hours ago, Jack Hobbs said:I've actually never parked on my driveway, as it is currently not fit for purpose. I know full planning permission overrides a TPO, by authorising the dropping of the kerb infront of the tree, should that not override the TPO, as this clearly indicates I'm allowed to park near the tree.
No, it doesn't override the TPO unless you showed the tree to be removed on the plan, you can only do works that are required to implement planning consent. If you have applied to extend the drive and then had that consented (without condition), it would be strong mitigation for any prosecution as they have essentially told you that you can build there. You cant just remove the tree though. If you only have consent for the crossover (outside the RPA) and you have then extended the drive either under PD (e.g. by putting some gravel down, etc.), or without consent by extending it using road stone and tarmac then that could be a contravention. If the drive hasn't been built to spec previously it could also be an issue.
11 hours ago, Jack Hobbs said:I purchased the house with a half drop kerb, now they are saying I can't park on my driveway, so my house is worth less, can I take legal action against them, for loss of parking?
Doubt it. There are ways to engineer driveways with trees in mind. It could be that the drive wasn't built using a tree friendly spec as conditioned by the original consent from the previous owner. That isn't unusual. I have successfully defended appeals via the planning inspectorate for trees within the middle of driveways where the owners are saying they restrict parking and turning space.
11 hours ago, Jack Hobbs said:I hope someone can help.
There isn't anywhere near enough info here. It will need a site visit and more info on the planning history. Where is the site?
11 hours ago, Jack Hobbs said: -
3 hours ago, New boots said:
Jack, Talk to a solicitor mate that's the only advice I can give you. If the council are threatening you with legal action talk to someone who actually knows the law and not someone who thinks they know...It could end up costing you money if you get bad advice.
Its not bad advice but the solicitor will tell him to get a tree report from a tree consultant / expert witness as solicitors are not qualified to comment on trees. So it will possibly end up being both.
-
Death Cap maybe?
-
16 hours ago, Paul in the woods said:
A quick google comes up with the "LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1976" and this is taken from Dorset Council, https://moderngov.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/documents/s6023/TreePolicies.pdf
The majority of LAs wont touch that with a barge pole as the powers are discretionary. The trees have to be imminently dangerous to action and if the owner ignores the notice the LA is obliged to do the works or take on liability.
-
2
-
-
Hi Folks
Was sent these pics yesterday with a request to ID. They are at the base of a laburnum and there is a scattering of internal deadwood.
Cheers
-
Yes you can get Nectria canker on sorbus
-
23 minutes ago, CanopyKing said:
Thanks will get on it
Just a had another thought. Check how the portfolio is assessed for the ABC qualification as it isn't clear on the HCC website. It should be assessed formatively as you progress by the tutor as you need to meet 100% of the assessment criteria. i.e. If they mark it and you get 70%, they should give it back to you and tell you what areas you need to improve on to get to 100%. It would then be subject to summative assessment by ABC at the end of the course which should be a formality if the tutor has done their job right with the formative assessment. Its no good them sending you info and leaving you to get on with it and then only checking at the end. That isn't how the ABC courses work. Also check if the ABC assessment is included in the course fee or if you have to arrange it yourself.
Good luck
-
I don't think the HCC dip is accredited so unless the person interviewing you doesn't really know what they are doing, it wont get you very far. If you are going down this route then I would go with the one that is awarded by ABC as this is an accredited course and will get you onto the next level. They only do L2 but you will need minimum L4 for surveying ideally, L6 for planning and expert witness, again ideally. L2 is a good starting point though. I think Treelife do a correspondence version called Tree-mail that you can start any time, at least they used to although they don't encourage it. There is also the ISA as an entry level that you can realistically study yourself and then step up to L4 from that, it will be a bit of a jump but its doable.
-
just based on the species I would go for Phellinus igniarius.
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Mick Dempsey said:
I like old houses
What he said. The only way I would buy a new house is if it was a self build so its not rammed on top of the next one on a housing estate and you can inject a bit of character / style into it.
-
3
-
-
19 minutes ago, jamallio96 said:
I'm slightly confused at how 1kg of wood can produce 1.65kg of carbon dioxide, didn't realise burning things created mass!
It doesn't create mass but it rearranges it. When you burn wood you are also using oxygen from the atmosphere for the reaction to work. The CO2 is then created from the wood (partly carbon) and the O2 in the atmosphere (oxygen). CO2 = 1 part carbon and 2 parts oxygen. I think the chemical bonds in the wood also contain some oxygen and contribute. Something like that anyway, its been a while since I studied that stuff.
-
3
-
Just trying to keep you on your Toes Chris! And I did concur with your ZOI/soil/foundation comment
Cobra Bracing
in Tree health care
Posted
As Steve said - its to prevent issues with shock loading in the event of failure.
The movement comes from the use of the sling that allows the branch to rotate unlike with the old steel pins that went though the branch.