Chris at eden

I was talking to an ecologist about this a while ago and apparently for a plant to be considered naturalised it only has to have a self sustaining population. i.e. that it doesn't require re-introduction to the wild to continue to survive. His suggestion was that if it reproduces for 3 generations that's enough. It doesn't need to be here for years and years. Plants which require continual re-introduction to survive are referred to as cultivated. Sycamore and sweet chestnut are definitely naturalised unless you believe what Ted Green says that is. His view is that sycamore is native and even refers to it as Celtic Maple. Last time is saw him speak he claimed to have proof of it. Not sure how he gets around its absence within the fossil record but you never know. Interesting debate!

Street fighter

Mariokart the snes version. Battle mode on the ice. Awesome

They were the same as the one pete showed above.

I first used one in 97. I think they were called Swedish strops in those days or at least that is what the instructor called them.

Spot on.

Cheers mate.

IMO the key to achieving most things in life is determination, if you want it, you can have it, you just got to work hard. Mate, that is the smartest comment I have read in a long time and its the key to passing the L6. When I did tech cert on the old system there were bits of the syllabuses that I made no attempt to learn. I just thought if they come up in the exam I will just avoid that question. No such hiding place on the new format. There were two lads in the westonbirt group who had already done degrees in other subjects. One in ecology and another in landscape. They both commented on not only how much more work was involved in the L6 but also that the learning was more complete. I don't see that catching someone out cos they have revised the wrong stuff is education or a good way of testing it at all. If your goal is to actually teach someone a skill then formative assessment is ideal cos they won't pass until they get it right.

Great comments Paul and i agreed 100%. If you do any qualification and then dont use the information for 10 years your retention of the info would be limited at best. Its why CPD is so important. The re-subs in this course are a bit like revision in that you go over them again and again to complete and polish your learning. Gaining these qualifications is for me about proving you can work at a set level not particularly about retaining information. In terms of education its now deemed by most experts that summative assessment on its own does not work and that formative assessment is much better for learning. I did my FE teaching qualification a couple of years ago and this was the focus of the course. The L6 is assessed purely formatively in that you submit and re-submit which forms the basis of your education. This is now best practice. I spoke with someone a few weeks ago who did the MSc in arb and apparently this is entirely course work now which is again formative. You may be able to throw some light on this Paul as i see you have done it yourself? What are your thoughts? Finally, anyone who thinks you cant fail the L6 should sign up and see how that goes for them, or possibly try telling that to the 65% of people who are still working hard to acheive or have dropped out. The work load and level of this course are a challenge and to say you can't fail is just wrong. Sorry about the rant but i know how hard i worked to gain this qualification so i'm a little miffed when people suggest its a dead cert that you pass.

I agree. Some of the lads were into their third year in my group which treelife did at a reduced cost I think. It was the only way they could stay motivated so they kept attending and filling in the gaps from their first year. Aim for two years though, it can be done.

Suppose you have to find what suits you really. I did it with a new born which was a real killer at times. Its all about determination and setting your self small achievable targets.

I asked Dave the question when I dropped off my portfolio. Don't quote me on this but I think he said he had 14 going to moderation which was about 35%. Phone Keely though and ask, I'm sure she will tell you. ABC apparently also described them as an exemplar training provider. I've done loads of stuff with them, in my experience other training providers don't come close. That may be that their style just suits me though. They really encourage discussion and debate, sort of like a learning forum so its always interesting. I'm not a fan of power point and they really keep that to a minimum. You'd think i'd be glad I am finished but I kind of miss it. Bit sad that really.

Mate, don't do it. Take a punt and re-sub, its much easier. I over researched in the first year then changed my approach in the second. Year 2 was much less stressful.

If it has gills, Oyster maybe?

An old woman asked me to come and look at some trees that were shafting her greenhouse a few years ago. I lied and said I was fully booked!

Fair play to you mate for dragging your ass through the course with those conditions. That just isn't the way it is meant to be taught but I've heard similar stories before. Go to treelife, the teaching is top class.

I do mortgage reports. Not sure what the exact location is but may be something I can cover. Do you have a postcode? If its outside of my area I'm happy to have a quick chat with him to point him in the right direction. Contact details on my website. Cheers,

I see what you are saying about the amount of work but no pain no gain in my view. My son was born 3 months into my first year which made it a real challenge but if you get your head down you can do it. I still finished mine in two years. The key to completing this course within two years is simply stop watching the TV and work every night through the work. I rarely did anything on it at the weekend but i worked damn hard on the week nights. The re-subs are the strengh of this course over anything else in my view as i had to submit my 5837 work 3 times. The first time i was probably about 75% there which in academic terms would be enough for a pass. With the L6 its not. If not for the re-subs i would now be writing 5837 impact assesments which were 75% correct but missed some key issues. As it is i got the chance to improve my learning and now write the documents to a better standard. Well worth the effort in my view. If you can't complete in 2 years then dont stress would be my view, you have another 3 after that to complete all the work. I don't see the big panic about this either. ICF are not saying you can't go for chartered status just that you have to make up the points in other areas. This is a professional qualification not an academic so the point is it builds and gets built on by experience so this seems reasonable enough. I have already spoken with Dave about this and he does not beleive it will stop us becoming chartered. I'm already working toward mine and this course gave me the confidence to do that. Another point worth considering is that ICF do not set the levels for education, QCF do and they say its level 6. If you applied for a job abroad for instance the employer would look at what level the qualification is not what ICF say. If you look at job adverts over here also they say must have a degree or equivalent, not must score 4 points for the MICFor scheme. Just a thought. Sorry mate i seemd to have strayed of your post here a little. i wouldn't started panicing just yet. Anyone who has complted this qualification will know exactly how good it is and that will filter through in time. Good luck to anyone who is doing this course and stick at it the rewards are well worth it. Cheers, Cheers,

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

That would be my interpretation also. The relevant town and country planning act would be 1971 section 60, not sure about the regs though.

Spot on Jules, I did PD arb with the TO in Poole and that was pretty muc what he told me.

Collybia i think.

Definition: A specific tariff is levied as a fixed fee based on the type of item (e.g., $1,000 on any car). An ad-valorem tariff is levied based on the item’s value (e.g., 10% of the car’s value). I can see how changing the wording from standard fine to tariff significantly changes the message conveyed!!! £20k is also not the maximum in reality as was recently shown by the Borough of Poole. £150k if memory serves me correct.

Should be noted though that the situation in the original post does not seem as straight forward as the one i presented so you should speak with the TO. He/she may well update the TPO though if it meets the criteria for visual amenity.

The standard fine is £20,000 and could be unlimited in rare circumstances but i take your point, always good to keep the TO onside. Quite right. I did say that i a later post as i thought i came across a bit blunt in some of my comments. Not my intention, it was late and i had just finished writing a nightmare mortgage report so sorry about that. To be clear though, if you have a TPO from the 1960's with an area designation that has never been varied, and there is a 10 year old tree on it, i would be quite happy to say its not protected to a client. I'm not suggesting anyone else do the same, that is their decision. But, remember the level of evidence required for prosecution. 1. The LPA have to prove beyond reasonable doubt on 3 counts, one of which that the tree was protected. How could they do this in the circumstances i described above? i.e. 40 year old area order with a 10 year old tree and never varied? 2. If you had to mount a defence against a prosecution this would take place in the civil arena meaning that you would only have to show on the balance of probabilities that the tree was not protected, i.e. a 51% chance. If you could show that the tree is only 10 years old and that the TPO area only covers those trees present 40 years ago. Seems pretty straight forward to me. Basically the council would have to show that the tree was almost certainly protected and you would only have to show that it was more than likley not. These are very different levels of evidence. Not suggesting anyone takes this approach as it doesn't build good relations with the TO and you would have to be sure of your facts but the original post was quite right, areas only cover trees present on the date they were served or presumably varied. Not sure why you would vary an area order though. Cheers,