Ledburyjosh

I worked at John Taylors 12th century Manor. Nice place, he was a twat though.

Is this a one off or something that may come up again in future? It's something I've often thought would be interesting to be involved with, however I'm booked for the remainder of the year.

I've had a go on Regs grapple. It noticeable out performs Captain. Easy to throw and store. But more importantly catches bigger branches easier as well as setting on all size branches easier.

Possible, there have been numerous more devices released since then also, blackbird, throttle, akimbo 2, the other rope runner, the ISC thing. Perhaps the market isn't as lucrative now as there are more options. I just spend a day climbing on two BDBs they will take some beating..

From stihls repoonse: 'However, it’s worth noting that the wrap-around handle is only beneficial during the felling stage. Once the tree is on the ground and needs to be processed the extra handle can actually become cumbersome, getting in the way and making the saw bulkier to manoeuvre. For this reason, most UK operators prefer the standard front and rear handle configuration, which offers better balance and simplicity for the majority of tasks typically performed in British forestry and arboriculture.' It utter bollocks, full wraps are better for snedding, more ways to to the saw and more maneuveable. And much better for in the tree for the same reason. The only thing they are shit for, so shit I'd say not usable, is high quality low foresty cuts. Fine for thigh high wanky arb felling though. Rather odd that they only deem the 500i full wrap not suitable for UK work but they are readily available for 400 series, there is some ****************wittery going on in stihls Management...

Big dawgs aren't just for show.. they really are better. I've not used the huge WCS, they do seem to eat up quite a bit of bar length, but the stihl oversized ones. They grip much better on wide diameter angled cuts and or wobbly buttress bits of trees.

The apex is good for fast descents and jumps...

Yes I hadn't come across the 'coming to the nuisance' thing before. Just reading around it and asking AI.. Not sure how much I personally agree with the brief summary of the below case, however such is law. This presumably could also translate to building a house next to trees then making the tree owner liable for any nuisance issues that arise. Sturges v Bridgman (1879) A doctor built a consulting room next to a long-established confectioner whose machinery caused vibrations. The court held that the confectioner was liable. Famous dictum: “What would be a nuisance in Belgravia Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey.” The doctor’s arrival did not bar the claim

Unsure. Never implemented it

More ChatGPT... some good learning. My original post was wrong. Based on Daltontrees and some AI research it OP may well have a case against the tree owners. Tree-Related Dampness as Legal Nuisance One-Page Reference Sheet for Arborists Core Principle If a tree on someone’s land causes continuing physical interference (e.g., dampness, moisture retention, blocked airflow) to a neighbouring property, and the owner knows or ought to know, they must take reasonable steps to abate it. Failure to act creates liability for ongoing damage. This mirrors the logic from Delaware Mansions v Westminster (2001). --- When Trees Can Cause Damp-Related Nuisance Dense canopy preventing drying of walls Vegetation enclosing narrow gaps between trees and buildings Branches or foliage touching structures and holding moisture Leaf litter blocking gutters causing overflow and penetrating damp Persistent shading leading to algae, staining, or wall deterioration Actionable when effects are substantial, not minimal. --- Relevant Case Threads Ball v Johnson (1925): Damp and deterioration from vegetation treated as nuisance. Smith v Giddy (1904): Vegetation affecting land enjoyment and building condition actionable. Lemmon v Webb (1894): Acknowledges that interference with air/light may amount to nuisance if damage results. Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan (1940): Owner liable for continuing nuisance once aware. Delaware Mansions (2001): Knowledge + failure to act = liability for ongoing harm. --- Liability Trigger Test 1. Is the vegetation causing or contributing to dampness or physical deterioration? 2. Is the interference material, not trivial? 3. Does the tree owner know or should they reasonably know? 4. Have they failed to take reasonable steps to abate the issue? 5. Is the damage foreseeable and continuing? If yes: nuisance is likely established. --- Typical Evidence Used in Claims Photographs of persistent damp or staining Surveyor or damp specialist reports Gutter/drain inspection images Records of prior notification to the tree owner Timeline of worsening condition Shadow studies or canopy density notes --- Practical Notes for Arborists Advise clients that damp-related nuisance is legally recognised when damage is provable. Recommend early action once notified to avoid liability. Keep written records of inspections, advice, and works. Management options: reduction, thinning, clearance from walls, improved airflow, or phased removal. --- The Takeaway Trees causing dampness can create a legal nuisance. Once an owner is aware, inaction opens the door to liability. The logic of Delaware Mansions applies beyond subsidence into any continuing, damaging interference.

ChatGPT summary: Here’s the crisp, arborist-friendly decoding of Delaware Mansions Ltd v Westminster City Council [2001] UKHL 55, delivered with a hint of narrative sparkle 🌿📚 The core story A row of London mansion-block flats began to sigh and settle, their foundations quietly distorted by thirsty tree roots from a London plane owned by Westminster City Council. The freeholder spent money on underpinning the building, then turned to the council and said: you caused this; reimburse us for the remedial works. Cue the legal spotlight. What the House of Lords decided The Lords offered three key principles that still echo through arboricultural liability circles: 1. A continuing nuisance gives rise to ongoing liability If roots keep trespassing beneath someone’s land and causing damage, that is a continuing nuisance. Even if the tree has stood there for decades, once the landowner (the council) knows or ought to know about the damage their tree is causing, they must act. 2. Knowledge triggers responsibility The council knew about the damage and didn’t remove the tree or take mitigation steps. Once aware, they had a duty to abate the nuisance, and failing to do so made them liable for the consequences. 3. The claimant can recover reasonable remedial costs Even though the freeholder incurred underpinning costs before acquiring the property, the Lords held that those costs were recoverable. The critical point: the nuisance was ongoing, and the council failed to stop it despite notice. Why this matters for tree professionals This case is a quiet titan in UK tree-law. It means: 🌱 Root-induced subsidence creates liability if you know about the risk and don’t act. 🌱 Formal notice (letters from insurers, engineers, surveyors) puts the tree owner firmly in the hot seat. 🌱 Failure to act becomes negligence and nuisance, even if the tree wasn’t negligent before you were warned. 🌱 Costs reclaimable include expert fees, underpinning and other remedial works, as long as they are reasonable. The nutshell takeaway Once you’re aware a tree is causing subsidence, you must act. Ignoring it leaves you paying for the underpinning party, and possibly more.

Capital assest value for amenity trees That sounds like the thing your after. Depends how big your talking for replacements.. tree spades and big trees are expensive. You'd have to work out the coating yourself there would be many variables.

Sounds like you've been on the scales fully kitted out?

I would typically agree with the knowing the tree was there statement. But Daltontree post seems legally more accurate, suggesting things can be done but the expense would appear to be the limiting factor, hence little ever does get done by tree owners in this situation as its not affordable to pursue it, for most anyway.

Thanks. So I should change that last sentence to 'it can be the councils problem if you have deep pockets and a stubborn attitude.'