QTRA , VALID, tree risk

[daltontrees]

On 23/04/2023 at 08:39, Acer ventura said:

Hi Richy

 

Just to chip in here, and give some balance to Julian's usual misrepresentation of VALID. It's this kind of stuff, and his disturbingly obsessive trolling of me, that got him a lifetime ban from the UKTC (the only person to ever have achieved this sanction). It's sad to see him still trolling me on a forum I seldom post on.

 

Full disclosure

 

I was the other main QTRA trainer from 2006 and drove most of QTRA's v5 (current version) development. I was also on the TRAQ (ISA Tree Risk Assessment BMP) committee in 2011. When I saw the matrices, I was so alarmed about this assessment method I bailed, and asked my name not to be included in the publication's list of acknowledgements.

 

In 2016, I moved on from QTRA to develop VALID. One reason was I thought the whole tree risk thing could be done simpler, clearer, and smarter.

 

My views on VALID are bound to be biased. Why not ask your Tree Officer why they prefer it? Or get in touch with the people who have written glowing testimonials.

 

https://validtreerisk.help/Training

 

Or search the Directory of Validators for someone in your area (Government Validators aren't listed in this).

 

https://validtreerisk.help/Find-an-Arborist

 

Though I'm now an ex QTRA trainer, it's worrying to see a QTRA User get so much wrong about it. For example, it isn't peer reviewed. The 2005 paper where it was introduced is VERY different to the current version. Just one of many examples, the lowest Probability of Failure was 1 in 1000. That makes every tree in a town or city an unacceptable risk by its own metric.

 

Sorry the Harrogate Validator training was booked out ages ago. The new unitary North Yorkshire Council is going full metal VALID and is adopting our Tree Risk-Benefit Management Strategy, so there has been lots of interest. We're also running 2 Basic Validator training workshops for all the Highways Inspectors. I would've put another one on but I've been invited to be a keynote speaker, to talk about Tree Risk Management and Assessment, at the national Arboriculture Australia conference in Sydney at the end of May. I have to fly out there as soon as we're done in Harrogate.
 

I'm done with your lies, Mr. Evans, you're more like Trump by the day. If it's something you think is good, you did it. Bad, someone else did it and you said 'told you so'. Projection, re-inventing the truth. And perversion. Your vanity project. Every chance for a speech and a plug. Just get on with it, no-one gives a f*&% where you're flying to. 

[richyrich]

I don't think I'm doing either - Harrogate VALID fully booked and the QTRA is on same days as Yorkshire Show- they state if you're late then you're not gonna pass.. bit too risky with all the traffic.£££😕my risk assessment...

[richyrich]

On 23/04/2023 at 21:42, benedmonds said:

THREATS, is another one to look at. I find it nice and simple to use.

 

Forbes-Laird Arboricultural Consultancy
http://www.flac.uk.com

I've quickly glanced at this- is it all free to use and no extra training required? 

[Acer ventura]

On 20/04/2023 at 17:37, richyrich said:

Great advice, thank you. I've only written a couple of reports since I did the pti. The latest one I'm awaiting the council's expert response. 

Of the other report I wrote- I found his response a bit condescending (??). I had roughly based it on the ISA system. He duly dismissed my use of wording such as 'moderate', etc. as 'imprudent'...

Cheers 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just following up on this because I've finished Validator training for North Yorkshire Council Tree Officers, and Basic Validator training for their Highways Officers.

 

Now that North Yorkshire Council has customised and adopted VALID's Government Agency Tree Risk-Benefit Management Strategy. A problem you're likely to face with any tree risk assessment report which requires their consent is unless it's an emergency job, they're only going to accept VALID reports. Not least because the risk rating thresholds they're managing the risk to in their Strategy are VALID's take on the Tolerability of Risk Framework.

 

 

The issue they have is they don't know what your 'Moderate' risk means - ie where it sits in ToR. The same would apply to any tree risk assessment system that's not using these risk ratings.

 

My understanding is they'll not accept QTRA reports because of the known structural faults in that method. There's also an issue with any risk between 1:10 000 and 1:1 000 000 being labelled as a Tolerable risk by QTRA Users without them working out whether it is ALARP (As Low as Reasonably Practicable). In this region, the risk is ONLY Tolerable IF it is ALARP.

 

Who is the Tree Officer who dismissed your report? - PM me with the reply they sent you if you'd rather not share publicly. I'm sure the last thing they'd want to do is come over as condescending and I might be able to help North Yorkshire Council with the wording when they refuse reports.

 

Because of demand for Validator and Basic Validator training, we're going back to Harrogate this autumn. The dates will be up on the Training page in the next few weeks.

You can stay in touch here.

https://validtreerisk.help/Lets-stay-in-touch

Edited May 26, 2023 by Acer ventura

[Kylus Sylvestris]

On 20/04/2023 at 17:37, richyrich said:

Great advice, thank you. I've only written a couple of reports since I did the pti. The latest one I'm awaiting the council's expert response. 

Of the other report I wrote- I found his response a bit condescending (??). I had roughly based it on the ISA system. He duly dismissed my use of wording such as 'moderate', etc. as 'imprudent'...

Cheers 

For what it's worth... I think you need to be mindful about what exactly you're doing? Typically you are instructed to help solve a problem. That problem comes from a (often under-explored NEED) whether that be a TPO app, Tree Risk Assessment, Planning Report, Expert Report... whatever. You are being paid for your opinion. Your opinion should be the 'sweet-spot' between you're knowledge & experience. 

Clearly you have knowledge & experience. Don't commit to, or rely on any deviation from where you are confident. A detailed Inspection may or may not be required to assess risk... and vice versa. 

Whatever you do report, you should have enough underpinning evidence/experience to be able to withstand cross examination. By Tree Officers, clients, solicitors...who ever. 

Personally, to assess risk I use whichever system is most appropriate .... or I simply make recommendations based on observation/facts/experience and underpin with appropriate evidence. In my opinion the most valuable off the shelf Tree Risk Management tool is VALID because it is the most robust, and is supported by essential risk management tools e.g. Tree Strategies etc.

I am also slightly bias as Mr Evans & I share a love of negroni's and a penchant for simple, effective reporting. 

[richyrich]

3 hours ago, Kylus Sylvestris said:

For what it's worth... I think you need to be mindful about what exactly you're doing? Typically you are instructed to help solve a problem. That problem comes from a (often under-explored NEED) whether that be a TPO app, Tree Risk Assessment, Planning Report, Expert Report... whatever. You are being paid for your opinion. Your opinion should be the 'sweet-spot' between you're knowledge & experience. 

Clearly you have knowledge & experience. Don't commit to, or rely on any deviation from where you are confident. A detailed Inspection may or may not be required to assess risk... and vice versa. 

Whatever you do report, you should have enough underpinning evidence/experience to be able to withstand cross examination. By Tree Officers, clients, solicitors...who ever. 

Personally, to assess risk I use whichever system is most appropriate .... or I simply make recommendations based on observation/facts/experience and underpin with appropriate evidence. In my opinion the most valuable off the shelf Tree Risk Management tool is VALID because it is the most robust, and is supported by essential risk management tools e.g. Tree Strategies etc.

I am also slightly bias as Mr Evans & I share a love of negroni's and a penchant for simple, effective reporting. 

Thanks for the info/advice. I'm hoping to get on the VALID course. I'm not judging which methodology is the best of the two, but since North Yorkshire Council is opting for VALID, then I'll give it a try. The QTRA course clashed with the Yorkshire Show, so potential traffic hold-ups.

[richyrich]

I recently completed the VALID training in Harrogate. I found it to be very interesting and worthwhile - adding a further 'dimension' to my tree surveying/risk assessment knowledge. David Evans was a great teacher and bought us all a pint (or Dandelion and Burdock)on completion.

[Acer ventura]

11 hours ago, richyrich said:

I recently completed the VALID training in Harrogate. I found it to be very interesting and worthwhile - adding a further 'dimension' to my tree surveying/risk assessment knowledge. David Evans was a great teacher and bought us all a pint (or Dandelion and Burdock)on completion.

 

 

Thanks, Rich

 

It was a pleasure to have you come along.

[Liquidambar]

An "Active Tree Risk Assessment " using  "VALID Tree Risk-Benefit Management and Assessment strategy"

just now done by the owner of woodland on a steep embankment above houses and a road. I'm not familiar with this VALID method - only the trees indentified for felling or pruning are named : can we assume all other trees on the embankment are safe?

[Acer ventura]

54 minutes ago, Liquidambar said:

...using  "VALID Tree Risk-Benefit Management and Assessment strategy"...

 

- only the trees indentified for felling or pruning are named : can we assume all other trees on the embankment are safe?

 

We never use the S word in VALID.

That's because to just about everyone, 'safe' means a complete absence of risk.

 

If a tree falls and kills or injures someone, it can't have been 'safe'.

 

The only 'safe' tree is a felled tree.

 

So, you can't assume all the trees on the embankment are 'safe'.

 

It sounds like a Validator carried out the assessment, under the protective umbrella of a Validator Tree Risk-Benefit Management Strategy.

 

The risk from the remaining trees will be Acceptable or Tolerable, as outlined in the Strategy.

 

Validator - TRBM Strategy NH v9.1.pdf