Andy Clark

And i hate to say it Mr H, but it's one of the many small causal problems in the grand "circle of life" that the industry has become. Under qualified students = higher accident rate = more H&S hoops to jump through = higher income required to cover costs = equals more opportunity for cheaper newcomers = more opportunity for colleges to capitalize on the supply/demand of the industry = more under qualified students = ...... and so on and so on. Why do you think more people are placing importance on NPTC certs these days?? Because until the colleges start getting it right, they're the only means to prove competency. And the more NPTCs are required, the more the academic knowledge base at that practical level is diminished. Just one big vicious circle.

Lee, Laetiporus sulphureus do you think?? The powdery rot looks along those lines.

Someone within the thread earlier on mentioned Merrist Wood, and i just wanted to add something to that point. I hate to say it, but I think it's more a case of the modern business mentality and expectation, rather than of any particular college. For example, i was at M/Wood back in 94/95 studying the NCH (Arb).... Once opon a time, that particular qual at that particular college, was revered around the world, as THE dogs dangly bits in terms of arb qualifications. I mean, i studied with people from Australia, N/Z, Sweden, Gerany.... all coming to a little Surry college to study a one year Arb course. Where has that gone?? More to the point, WHY has it gone?? Take that example, and then add the point that someone else raised, regarding students coming outta collage with NPTC certs... Again, that never used to happen!! Colleges have the opportunity to teach what are called "secondary learning goals"... basically, a qual within a qual. Back in the day, that used to be used to teach the accompanying NPTC certs... i came outta M/Wood with an NCH (Arb), plus the NPTC's to back it up (the old "Blue Book" of units 19/20/21).... So why does that not happen now?? Most NPTC assessors are now independent, as they can make more money than what colleges pay their lecturers.... so, in order to offer the NPTCs as a secondary learning goal, they either have to pay for the lecturer to become an NPTC instructor/assessor (and run the risk that the lecturer is gonna leave cos he/she can make more money as an independent), or hire in an outsourced Instructor/assessor. Add that to the business sense aspect (bums on seats mentality), and the finance/resource limitation aspect of my earlier post, and what do you have?? Gentlemen..... welcome to the "politics of teaching".

Gents, I've been reading this thread with a lot of interest, and the occasional sigh and chuckle. I spent some time teaching Arb at our local Ag college, mostly teaching ND Arb and C&G PhaseII Arb (10 week course), and i hate to say it but perhaps the biggest cause of everything that you've already covered in the thread is politics. The politics of teaching. Iniially, you'd think that those were two words that shouldn't be used together in the same sentence, but that's pure and simply what it boils down to. Take the ND Arb that I taught for example.... The college prospectus listed a nice long and in depth section on "career options" following successfull completion... Tree Officer, Surveyor, "Arborist", ... all your middle of the road kind of management jobs that fit in between the roles of Climber and Consultant. BUT, when it came down to it, the course itself was not an ND ARB.... it was ND HORT with Arb units!!! There's a HUUUUUUUGE difference!! But then what were the Arb units that were included?? Tree Ident, Tree planting and after care, Tree Climbing, and tree felling. Hardly enough in terms of knowledge, to get most people through the door of a contractor and get a groundsman job, let alone on the road to becoming a tree officer!! So, why does this happen..... well, the qualification itself is made up of units or modules. And colleges are allowed to pick and choose which of those units are taught, as long as enough teaching hours are covered to meet the qualification sylabus. BUT (again), colleges can (and do) only teach those units, that can be taught within their funding and resource constraints. Therefore, rather than choosing to teach the most relevant units for the usefull and relevant outcome of the qual (ie, what the relevant industry dictates), they teach the ones that are cheapest and easiest to resource..... basic business sense really. And as for the C&G phaseII... well, that's a whole other matter. The C&G PhaseII (or 10 week tree surgery course as it is sometimes called), was originally intended for people that already had experience within the industry, but wanted an academic qual to back up their knowledge level. Ie, they already knew "how", but wanted a qual that touched the subject of "why". BUT (there's another one), this is not how some colleges are running the course nowadays..... Now, it is being used more as an "Intro to Arb" course, with students coming from all walks of life and of all ages... to learn how to become "a tree surgeon". To top it off, my old place used to run it as a one day per week for the entire academic year, rather than 10 back to back weeks. Sorry, but it simply don't work like that. You CANNOT take a green as grass, 40 year old ex postman, and teach him to be a climber/tree surgeon/arborist in what basically amounts to 34 ish days!! I mean, no disrespect to anyone on this site what-so-ever, but unless you naturally "have the gift", it just ain't gonna happen! So lets go back to what i mentioned earlier.... Business sense... Highest possible income, for the lowest possible outlay. A college, may well be expected to be a place of academic learning, but it is also run and managed just the same as any other business. And what is the usefull and most productive aspect of a college as a business?? Bums on seats! That, gentlemen, is what the majority of lecturers in this country, be it Arb or otherwise, are forced to focus on..... in just the same way, that climbers are expected to climb as many trees as they can in a day, or groundsmen are expected to drag the most amount of brash they can.... Lecturers are there to make money, by getting bums on seats. Needless to say, i resigned after one term!

"Traceability", is the magic word in this scenario.... There has to be some "traceability" that ensures the piece of kit in your hand, corresponds with the piece of kit on the record sheet. If the original serial number etc has worn off, then the kit/piece of equipment still needs some form of identification that would correspond with the inspection record. Eg.... serial number worn off..... Krab marked with red insulating tape..... recorded on written inspection that "serial number worn off, Krab marked with red tape" That mentality and process should then follow on throughout the life of that particular piece of equipment, so that the written record eventually builds into a complete and comprehensive history.... eg... red tape falls off.... replaced with yellow tape..... recorded on written inspection sheet that "red tape fell off, replaced with yellow tape" And that goes for worn out/replaced kit too.... Say for example you replace a Krab or Prussik... As long as you note on the record that "red tape Krab removed from service, replaced with Krab s/no ABC123", then the record is up to date, and should just keep rolling on consecutively. Eventually, the kit record should end up like Triggers broom in that "Only Fools and Horses" sketch..... 'Had the same broom for 15 years..... Yep, it's had 48 new heads, and 36 new handles' (or words to that effect. )

Or the other way to look at it if he's running scared over the price, is spend half hour or so doing a bit of leg work to get a heads up with the background info, then give him a quote for mediation services! £500 quid mediation bill, with the prospect of saving him £000's on the t/work costs....?? I recon he'd bite your arm off! Get the tree work or not then, you've still made on the job.

Firstly Tommer, Yes, the council (as the tree owners) do have statutory duty of care obligation. Just the same as any other/public/corporate/private body has duty of care obligations if it were their trees. Getting them to act accordingly and do something about it however, is another matter. You mention the location of the trees as along the side of the a bridlepath...... Are you aware of any TPOs or Conservaion Area constraints? You also mention the 1-2 acres of field that the landowner has lost due to the overgrow nature...... Are you aware of any plans he has to "farm" this land?? Is "not using" the land, imposing any financial loss on the landowner? Silly question, but have you approached the local Tree Officer and just simply discussed the matter with him/her??

Something that i'd like to add about now, and something that your post seems to contradict Scooter, is with regards to the 'Arbtalk being for discussion, not ripping individuals etc to pieces' stuff.... Anyone else notice the irony in Scooter's post??

Indeed they do Scooter..... So does keeping things in the context by which they are said! Agreed and wholly accepted, that yes, I did make derogatory remarks as to my views of the consultant and TO..... but they are exactly that, views! And they were posted/noted as such, in response to Topcat's direct question. I'm sure you'll agree however, that the other 9,950 or so characters that were used to form my worded response to the matter at hand, were strung together in a more 'constructive and positive' manner??

Clarify all you like chap.... but let's not forget that the original app. by the consultant was made purely pertaining to the reduction..... It was the TO that... ahem.... 'put pen to paper' and started shouting exemption. PLUS, I can't realistically see that the consultant would've submitted (a polite) notice to the LPA, for a 25% reduction based on DDD exemption! Selective branch removal/dead-wooding/felling etc, yes... all well feasible under exemption...... but a 25% reduction?? C'mon Tony, if that notice had come through to you, you'd have laughed at him.

Stop nit-picking! Pesky tree officers. lol..... Believe it or not, I was trying to keep it simple. Joking aside though, agreed, they don't 'need' to be lifted in order to facilitate felling.... HOWEVER.. (sorry Tony, there's always one )... I do know of instances (remember the other point in this thread regarding the H&S claim and possible subsequent Misc Prov notice) whereby orders have been revoked so as to mitigate the council against H&S liability as a result of said order. Basic point of pros v cons.... revoke the order or grant works and serve Article 5 cert. And yes Tony, before you say it, I know article 5 certs shouldn't be used in order to avoid section 203 claims, but you know as well as I do that it happens.

Judicial review's perhaps a bit harsh at this stage..... maybe further on down the line in order to pick apart the legalities concerning the maladministration of the relevant statutes, (as you say) SHOULD the LPA insist on felling..... but IMO you DEFINATELY have cause to start making a few noises with the Local Govt. Ombudsman, with regards to the manor in which the TO has acted. It may also be worth a look at the NATO website Membership | National Association of Tree Officers to see if the LPA is a member, then having a word about filing a complaint with them regarding the operations of one of its members. But hey, if the JR threat worked.... i'm not knocking it! As for the consultant...... far do's.... that explains a bit more.... but i still maintain that his/her actions should been with a bit more regard to the tree owner, regardless of who's paying the bill.

Brilliant!!

Mark, Sorry chap, i always thought WoodsmanBSc was James' account..... Never realised you were on here. But then again, i suppose i should've realised that the contract manager would've been heading up.... erm.... contracts. Ooooopps

Failing that, both should at least both go and look up the word "Professionalism" in the dictionary!

O.k, first few points: Why did the consultant submit reduction app, and not push for fell under DDD exemption in the first instance?? I understand that the property owner wanted to retain the tree, however whilst there remains no cure for 'BC' "Remove and re-plant" should have been the more pragmatic approach (and advised the customer as such), as opposed to submitting the owner to the continued financial constraints of 4/5 yearly pruning, of a tree that is going to inevitably die. Is it really the best approach to prune (therefore cause further shock) a tree already in decline?? Was the consultant REALLY acting in the customers best interests?? O.k, so why was the customer not aware of the app?? Again, any consultant worth his salt, should be acting on the best interests of his/her client, and should therefore keep them posted every step of the way. Also, why was he LPA TO "discussing" felling?? Hardly a professional approach to verbally "put the frighteners" on the tree owner. As the consultant made the app "for and on behalf of" the client, the LPA TO should just have responded directly to that app, and therefore dealt directly with the consultant. Decision notice?? In relation to the app for the reduction work?? That notice should've contained nothing more than a "yes/no" answer, solely based on (and in relation to) the current TPO status of the tree as a direct response to the corresponding app. Nothing more! The LPA notice/insistence to fell the tree comes under their powers to exercise the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, thereby exercising their right/authority to intervene in matters of concern over public health and safety. In the instance of a tree, it is common practice (expected) to supply supporting evidence to substantiate their claims (i.e a tree report), HOWEVER is this evidence/report based on the condition of the tree THEN (prior to reduction) or NOW (post reduction)?? The LPA also has to submit a time limit (notice period), and it is usually common place for tree owners to seek an independent report during this time, and therefore appeal to the councils decision. Either way, the two things are VERY different, and SHOULD NOT have been "lumped together" under the guise of a decision notice. Also, why was the tree owner not already made aware of the signs/'symptoms'/outcomes of 'BC', by the consultant in the first instance?? Surely if he/she has carried out a professional PAID FOR tree report and made subsequent recommendations, all the aspects pertaining to 'BC' should've been submitted to the client in the report, as the basis of the decision for the resulting recommendations?? Possibly also even been included in the app as supporting evidence. 'Do what they want' in relation to the app and resulting exemption, or in relation to the Misc Prov notice?? So is it just a "snotty" letter, or is he serving official notice?? Again, if he's exercising Misc Prov on the basis of safety, this has to be served formally, and subsequently supported with evidence. RUBBISH!!! If it went to court, it'd get laughed out again!! TPO prosecution ONLY comes from the basis of lawfull/unlawful disregard for said TPO. For a prosecution to stand, the LPA would have to prove either malicious intent or acting without regard, and as the works were carried out to solely repair and alleviate accidental damage, this would be nigh on impossible! If anything, the works carried out have been done so WITH regard to the TPO, and in theory, to leave the tree damaged or to fell the tree would've been acting WITHOUT regard, and IMO a good case lawyer would turn the prosecution around based on that fact alone. Not only that, i'm guessing the contractor was acting under their own initiative when carrying out the repair work? If so, it would be the contractor that ran the risk of prosecution, and not the tree owner. Unless of course the contractor claimed they were acting under instruction from the tree owner, but even then, this would be hard to prove, and ultimately still leave the contractor in that "You should've known better" position, which if anything would back up the standpoint of prosecuting the contractor on grounds of INTENT. Either way, the tree owner shouldn't be worried!! Not entirely true as again, the TPO/Misc Prov points are being confused. The first point to consider is the work applied for (reduction) in relation to the TPO status of the tree. I mean, you use the words 'tree was exempt', but exempt in relation to what?? Was it exempt in the point of having the reduction carried out under DDD EXEMPTION, or was the TPO LIFTED thereby allowing the tree to be felled?? Put it another way... consider a large broken branch within the crown of a TPO'd Oak..... this branch could be removed under DDD exemption, but that doesn't go as far as to allow the tree to be felled, now does it?? What the LPA should've done, is again ONLY act in correspondance to the application submitted..... either notify a decision to allow the requested reduction to be carried out under DDD exemption, OR notify that the TPO had been removed. The duty of care bit, would and SHOULD only come into play in relation to alleviating the Misc Prov notice. Most of this i've already covered in other areas, but as for the 'further pruned to fence height' bit..... THE LPA DO NOT HAVE A LEG TO STAND ON IN INSISTING THIS ACTION! Either the tree has been made safe, or it hasn't!! PERIOD!! Surely the reduction has helped reduce the possibility of branch failure, compared to the trees original condition?? Not only that, but if it wasn't safe in the first place, why have they not previously acted and pursued a misc prov notice? Yeah, two..... 1) The consultant wants shooting. 2) The LPA T.O should be sacked.

Kev.. James.... I hate to put a downer on things gents, but you two need to be VERY careful with something like this..... and all because of one word.... LIABILITY!!!! With Acorn as the principal contractor, you would be liable for any and all work carried out by a secondary contractor. Think back to the OCA panel/criteria.... (and you both know the trouble i had in making THAT work!) that's the kinda hoops you'd need to make contractors jump through to ensure limited liability comeback. And then when you consider the type of work being undertaken... Call-out work... perhaps the most dodgiest of tree work that there is...... and you're looking at a big fat can of worms. Best of british luck boys. I hate to say it, but you're gonna need it.

No, what you need is a 150" tipper! The doc i've attached is part of a presentation I put together for fountains fleet dept a few years back. Admittedly the prices are geared around a brand new vehicle, but the principle's the same for a cheaper 2nd hand one. Arb Crew Vehicle.doc

for the pdf copy Internet Archive: Free Download: Webster's practical forestry: a popular handbook on the rearing and growth of trees for profit or ornament

If anyone's really interested in the book, you can read it online or download a pdf copy Webster's practical forestry: a popular handbook on the rearing and growth of trees for profit or ornament

Anyone come across NHSS 18 yet?? http://www.ukas.com/library/Technical-Information/Pubs-Technical-Articles/Pubs-List/NHSS%2018%20August%20Issue%203.pdf

Or a towable turntable chipper???

Hmmm.... interesting.... Fancy a beer and a chinwag sometime Kev??

I hate to say it, but it also comes back to the HASW act too.... You obviously have an obligation to protect your workers, therefore must provide them "where practicable" with relevant protection to ensure their safety... Arse covering would therefore imply that you do all you can to protect them from possible traffic collision..... hence why high-viz ballistics and t-shirts are becoming more and more widespread. A strategically placed "Tree Cutting" sign, is unfortunately not good enough these days.

Here's a good point..... If the industry orgs were doing there job properly, the following thread wouldn't even have to be asked...... http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/large-equipment/8915-does-apply-you.html