BS8516:2008 Recommendations for tree safety inspection

[Amelanchier]

Here is the draft edition of the new BS8516 (which I've shamelessly lifted from http://www.qtra.co.uk/cms/index.php?section=39)

 

Its a draft, open for consultation so comments please. Keep them on topic or they'll be deleted. I'd like to put together a reponse from arbtalk members if the content warrants it.

BS_8516_2008 Recommedations for tree safety inspection.pdf

[John Shutler]

cheers tony,only had a quick scan over it but il have a better look later,looks interesting though

[skyhuck]

It shall not sink!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[skyhuck]

i'm really hard pushed to see the point of QTRA

 

Its got me some work

[David oakman]

I will read and post any thoughts i may have.

[Amelanchier]

bump (or lifebelt)...

[Paul Barton]

Just read it. Seems like a fairly well put together draft I think.

 

I like that they warn in the introduction that it is a mistake to manage them in an overly risk-averse manner. This is very subjective in itself though?

 

It seemed odd that trees with no significant defects do not need recording during the inspections (4.3.3) - I could see that causing problems in court if 'assumptions' are to be made about trees present within the area. Surely it would make more sense to note the tree down in the survey anyway while you're there?

 

Liked the primary consideration to modify the target where there are hazards rather than recommending arb works straight away.

 

What do you reckon Tony - being someone who carries out lots of inspections you must have considerably more insight in to this than me.

[Linda]

I have some serious issues with this draft and have been trying to put my concerns into writing (only because you begged me, Tony!), but failing miserably because of other commitments overtaking brain activity... Here's a link to Chris Hastie's comments about the draft, with which I mostly say "hear, hear"...

 

http://tinyurl.com/5sv424

 

So, here you go Tone, some long awaited feedback to your initial post!

[Amelanchier]

It seemed odd that trees with no significant defects do not need recording during the inspections (4.3.3) - I could see that causing problems in court if 'assumptions' are to be made about trees present within the area. Surely it would make more sense to note the tree down in the survey anyway while you're there?

 

Yeah, seems a bit odd that doesn't it...

 

Now I don't survey thousands of trees at a time so I can afford to plot significant trees and record them as having "No visible significant defects". I'm of the opinon that recording the fact that you have no problems is of value.

I suppose that doesn't scale well to larger surveys but the draft doesn't make that distinction.

 

The other issue I have involves the description of re-inspection intervals and whilst the topic has been discussed heavily on the UKTC forum I think its important to bring it up here.

 

Section 7.2 of the draft suggests that the interval of basic inspections (those undertaken by someone with the ability to spot obvious defects and hazards) should be reflected by site usage - fine. However, it then goes on to note that a 2-3 yr cycle may be appropriate for less frequented sites!

 

I wonder how that sits with those of you out there who are park wardens or manage estates???

 

For expert inspections, which presumably would be undertaken less often on less trees the recommended minimum interval is 5 years. I've recommended trees be re-inspected in 10yrs in the past. Parkland sweet chestnut, a bazillion miles from anything falling to bits in peace. A decade is a blink of an eye to them, but my report would not have followed the BS?!?

 

The fundamental issue is that the draft tries to fit itself to all types of inspection so as to cover all bases. The problem is that in doing so, the detail of the guidance is lost.

 

Its worth having a read even at the draft stage and making your self heard. Definately check out Lindas link. A far better structured and cogent arguement than my remblings.

[Will Hinchliffe]

Thanks for posting the doccument Tony. I thought the document was interesting reading and has the potential to be very useful. I thought it was quite relaxed and ambiguous. I did some tree safety surveying 3 years ago as a layman, and think I would have found it useful. I dont think I really qualify to coment any further than that on the document or on Chriss Hastie's reply. I think I would like to do more saftey surveying in the future but at the moment the thought of writting reports and surveys puts me in a spin.