Puffingbilly413

Evidently. I should have been clearer. You'd wear them when it's cooler presumably? Because it makes sense to wear relevant PPE would be the logic. But when it gets hotter you'd choose not to because it makes life uncomfortable. Which it does of course. But the risk to your legs is the same. So in a roundabout way you can't do the job properly in the heat because your can't or won't wear the relevant PPE.

I bet you still have your pith helmet Kev

Why wouldn't you?

Good to see Trigger is still a belter 👍

Then you're acclimatised. That makes a massive difference. Try working hard wearing chainsaw trousers and helmet in 40C heat without introducing yourself to it gradually and people are asking for trouble. Early starts, short stints and lots of fluids and work should still be achievable. Just don't try and work at the same rate as you would when it's cooler. Having seen lads on the receiving end of heat exhaustion, it's no laughing matter when it happens that's for sure.

Is disposal of 5 tonnes bags of greenwaste factored in to that time? Did you have to pay to drop it? How much fuel did you go through - hedgers and driving? What does your insurance cost. Etc etc etc. In other words what are your running costs? What do you want to pay yourselves? What will the client pay? In amongst those questions lies the answer to what you need to charge for that job.

Do you have any photos of the base and rooting area?

Shit what a nightmare Steve. Glad you all escaped without serious injury.

Yeah I see what you mean and don't disagree really. I think in the OP's example they have included recommendations to fell for safety reasons. I believe it is with the scope of the BS to comment as such if appropriate - but the comments would surely reflect that these particular recommendations were not pe se relevant to a TCP etc. I wasn't suggesting that a report be submitted without client approval - rather I meant that I would not remove relevant evidential comments/recommendations from a report because a client didn't want them in. If the information is relevant for those making the decisions then it has to appear surely. But I do take your point re the differing purposes of a TCP, AIA, TPP etc

'As every employment relationship will be specific to the individual and employer, the precise status of any worker can ultimately only be determined by a court or tribunal. Please note: These changes do not apply to those who have a ‘self-employed’ status.' Looks not to apply to the genuinely self employed?

Hmm still seems strange to me. You inspect the tree and make recommendations for works or not as appropriate. Would you really change a recommendation to fell a tree in your report because the client didn't want that in there?

Is this for tree reports in general or 5837 ones specifically?

Interesting take. I wouldn't be keen to alter what should be an objective report in order for it to say what the client wants it to say. Granted you work for the client but the first duty is to be objective surely. It's up to them whether they want to use the report.

It does Mick you're right. Did some work for a guy recently who did exactly that. Can't see the situation changing though unless there is a change in the law that makes all trees above a certain DBH protected. But that would be impossible to administer so won't happen. That said, in Scotland the legislation has been amended so that it is automatically an offence to fell a tree unless an exemption is in place. In practice nothing has changed because the exemptions are (pretty much) the same as before and as they still are elsewhere in the UK. What is different is that the fact that there are exemptions now comes after the big stick wording of 'offence' whereas it used to be the other way round IE you can fell trees in certain circumstances without needing permission but otherwise you'd be committing an offence. Seems like nothing really but as most folk only read the first few lines of anything it does have an impact I reckon.

He would be worrying about it a great deal I would suggest. The expense involved in (potentially) being taken to court for breaching the planning conditions by removing the trees is unlikely to go unnoticed.

Planning authorities have a statutory duty to take into account the protection of trees likely to be affected by building works requiring planning consent. Your situation is completely standard. It's true that you could have felled any/all of your trees prior to applying for planning permission as they were not otherwise protected. However now that the council has granted permission with conditions, those conditions exist and have to be followed (legally speaking that is). I agree that this does seem strange - you've gone about things the 'right' way and now have to jump through some expensive hoops as a result. But that is how it is. As has been said, you only need to comply with the tree protection measures they agree on but you don't have to fell any trees you wish to retain just because your tree report recommends it. That said, if said trees have been inspected by an arb consultant and recommended for felling, then there will be a concrete reason for it. The Arb Association has a brief guide to all things tree protection, including planning conditions: Arboricultural Association - A brief guide to legislation for trees WWW.TREES.ORG.UK A range of tree related help and advice for members of the public... Oh - councils often fail to remove conditions after a build has been finished. Do make sure you chase them to do so at the end.

If you're going to have pallets to hand, just bookend your stack at the ends with another pallet. Then just screw down with some decking screws through some wriggly tin on the top and that will brace it up. Can stick a few short cross braces of scrap wood on at an angle if needed. Works well for me. This way you don't need to alternate log direction at the ends - just stack them all the same. Makes it a bit quicker. If you keep it to a couple of pallets length at a time, you can just unscrew the roof and pull the logs out. I actually use weldmesh for kindling but just take it off a roll. It wants to stay curved so I just form a huge cylinder with it and cable tie to stop it unwinding. Tin on the top and cut a small door in the bottom. Wet goes in the top, dry out the bottom. Sits on a big pallet. This isn't a commercial set up really as I mostly burn it all myself but probably around 40-50 cube lying about.

Can't blame you. I'd be unwilling to sell mine. For what it does it's great. I admit I'm a defender fan so occasionally wilfully blind to their faults but at 220,000 I do plan to try and double that.

Aye they do in arb configuration with a loaded chip box on the back. Mine's a standard crew cab and to be fair when it's set up properly it steers pretty well. Big tyres, shite roads and dare I say it some shite driving and it soon becomes more interesting. Did you sell yours btw?

I watched a snatch Landover lose a front wheel. Fortunately I was watching from the back of the vehicle in front. It just took off and took us ages to find it. No real damage though. Ended up about 150 metres away in some bushes.

Jeez I hoped you wouldn't say that. I drive a 130 too and my steering has been feeling a bit weird recently but just been putting it down to Defender quirks. I'll be going to the garage I think...

Ouch. What was the effect in your ability to steer when that happened?

Spiralling?

Have a little respect Mick...

I don't believe it would. You specify the works to be carried out on the tree. Disposal of arisings doesn't come into it surely (in TPO terms). Sure, the council might write it in there but I don't think that's within their remit to specify. Unless I'm woefully out of date.