daltontrees

There is a lack of advice on this question at the Arb Association, so here's the basics as I see it. The person you appoint should be qualified, and I would suggest minimum of Professional Tree Inspection and AA Tech. Insurance is a fundamental - at least £1M professional indemnity. Ask to see proof of it. It's not too cheeky to see a sample report. What you're needing is a tree risk assessment. That's not the same as the often-mentioned VTA (Visual Tree Assessment) methodology, which only covers about a third of the risk assessment process. I was going to go on and list all the other things you should be looking for, but it'll take too long. If you send me a private message through Arbtalk I will provide you with a consultant specification you can adapt. I'm not looking to get the job (I'm in Scotland) but I would be happy to help you make sure you get what you need form the survey and consultant. Asking for quotes for a 'tree survey' is like asking for quotes for, say, a car. If you don't specify how many wheels the car has to have, you'll get a Reliant Robin.

Interesting! And just having looked at 2012 Regulation 19 (2) (b) (ii), it seems there is no 28 day limit on appealing against an 8 week deemed refusal. Otherwise there would be no rationale to apply for TPO consent until the TPO is confirmed. So, apply on unconfirmed TPO, get refusal, and either wit for confirmation before appealing or wait for non confirmation and then do a Gary Prentice on it after 6 months. Or am I getting that wrong?

I may have a partial answer to the triggering mechanism, but you'll have to wait as it requires a lot of typing and I am having to leave on survey for a couple of days.

Thanks, that makes sense as I spotted something recently on Sycamore that I couldn't identify. I'll add this one to my repertoire.

True. What limited experience and knowledge I have of these things is that it comes down to a simple quetion of whether the tree is important for the amenity of the area. As long as the Council has not decided it is important on an unreasonable basis, there seems to be a reluctance of courts to interfere in Councils' discretion. A Review in theory is possible if the Council failed to consider the importance of the tree at all. And a succesful Review might merely result in the Council reaching the same decision later without the procedural mistakes.

David, do you have any experience of this one occurring on other Maple species, like Sycamore or Norway Maple?

And I suppose there is some possibility that whereas a TPO with no objections would be approved under delegated powers quickly but an objection might ofrce committee procedure which I would guess would add a month. So it may be quicker not to object.

There's no right of appeal against the making of a TPO. As you suggest, make application for the work on the TPO'd tree, wait for refusal or deemed refusal, appeal and wait again. Please remember the information needed to support a TPO application is considerably more onerous than for a CA notification.

I'm just back from the hills. "Just check the client's and your post on that morning, then go for it." A new TPO would not have to be se4rved via an agent. It should go to the owner/occupier. Your previous role as agent may not be relevant. Play it safe. Check the mail while fuelling up (you should be looking out for the postie as part of teh risk assessment).

You'd think htere'd be clear answers to this sort of question, but there aren't. HSE says "FISA recommends that the minimum level of adequacy of training for chainsaw operations – including aerial tree work, pruning and dismantling – be confirmed by an independent assessment, leading to recognised qualifications... I am assuming for now that dismantling includes rigging. It doesn't always, but if it does the LOLER provisions are added to all the other chainsaw, working at heights, PPE etc. stuff. And LOER already alpplies to work positioning and equipment. The grey area is this (as I see it). Althought HSE is clear that chainsaw use needs independent asessment an certification, HSe is not clear that rigging and dismantling needs these. But your employer MUST assess your competence, if not proficiency, nbefore lettng you do these things in his name. And if you aren't up to it you should eb getting training. The usual for trainees is that they can do rigging operations if they are also receiving training AND being adequately sdupervised. The idea is that you are safe while gainign and demonstar ting competence and are moving towards demonstaration of competence. My view - boss on the ground with CS41 doesn't mean that you can rig without, unless you're being actively supervised and are progressing towards demonstrable competence. Insurance won't be worth a tosser if the employer is flaunting basic requirements. But you won't know that until after the event.

Hahaha, the COuncil letter says that you have to 'apply' again because it's a CA. That old nugget comes up again. Havign trawles through all this post, it seems clear to me as it has to others that in the letter of the law you do not have to re-notify. To that I would add that in the spirit of the law, tehre is allowance for TPOs not to be confirmed and therefore anticipation of circumstances where not confirming is appropriate. This seems to be one of those circumstances. It also is plain that the Council at a date immediately before the end of the 6 months did not deem the tree worthy of protection, so why would it when a new CA notification is put in? That's a rhetorical question. The safe assumption in law is that the legislation meant 2 years when it said 2 years and it meant 6 months when it said 6 months, and in the absence of legislation or guidance saying that a lapsed and unconfirmed TPO resets the CA clock, you have a robust 'defence' if the Council tried to prosecute you for felling in accordance with the original s.211 notice. What public interest would be served by attempted prosecution, apart from showing up the errors of the Council? None. Fell away! Just check the client's and your post on that morning, then go for it.

There had been a small cavity at the base before the tunnel went through.

It's well flexible but be careful if you deviate from the manual then QTRA Ltd. probably won't defend you if you get it wrong. That said, I do it all the time and I add notes to my reports explaining what I have done and why.

I am using it about 2 or 3 days a week, sometimes I have to over-ride bits of it sometimes or modify i,t but basically it makes decison-making quicker and cleaner and gives a lasting record of decision-making that can protect me and the client in the event of spurious claims. It's not perfect but it's almost infinitely better than the 'trust me I'm a professional' approach to recommendations, with no back-up. I can always explain (and quantify) my decisions without hiding behind mumbo jumbo, and I have been completely comfortable recommending that works suggested by other (risk-averse) consultants be ignored. It has saved many a tree and saved many a client a lot of money on unnecessary works.

Nice and clear as ever, Ed.

Utopia District Council I think. Round our way you'd die of starvation relying on the Council getting anything proactive done.

If I waited for written confirmation, I would (with the exception of one occasion where I got a reply with inappropriately conditions attached) literally never have carried any of the 50 or so Conservation Area jobs I have done. It seems the 6 week rule is there as much to suit the LA as the applicant. I always do what's best for my client/customer the applicant.

It's always seemed to me too an odd way to go about saying that you can do the notified work after 6 weeks if there's no TPO. But it's also worth remembering that the wording is structured to put the onus on the notifier to PROVE that he served notice. And I suppose a Council won't start proceedings if it knows that, having received notice, that defence will succeed. There's possibly a Rizla of a chance that notice has been served but not received. Weird stuff does happen though. Last week I received a formal document at my house for my ex, who has never lived there. I happen to know it was probably a 14 day notice about something innocuous from a lawyer. One copy ordinary post, one recorded delivery. In the Christmas post mayhem, the postie didn't try to get anyone to sign for the recorded delivery one. By the time I sent it back marked 'not at this address' the notice period will have expired and the sender might by now be off on some other course of action based on having served notice. Just goes to show something, not sure what except that you never can be sure.

10 out of 10 for the hinge and extra points for doing it all with an axe, and only using the saw as a felling lever.

Crowding doesn't cause compression. It might encourage inclusion but it doesn't cause it. And crowded trees have mutual companion shelter such that weak forks survive where they wouldn't otherwise. And when they do the crowding reduces damage to people and property. There is a clear and correct answer to this fairy vague question. But since the purpose of course works is to encourage thought and research and an answer in your own words, you'll get most benefit and sense of reward from researching higher authorities than Arbtalk. Lonsdale's book has been mentioned, and Mattheck/Breloer's Body Language of Trees is perhaps more approachable in presenting the arguments, since it does it from a biomechanics perspective rather than a risk management perspective. I'm pretty sure Shigo covers it well. As others have hinted, all other things being equal it is a question or likelihood of failure rather than risk. I'm trying to be cruel to be kind. Try and enjoy pursuing the realisation of what the answer is and why. It's a good answer to have in your pocket for the rest of your tree career.

Thanks very much I plan to make a microscope thin section of part of it.

Called the Bourtree up here.

That's gorgeous. Do you still have it? And (serious question) would you post a bit of it to me if I refund the postage and packaging?

Looks like Sirococcus tsugae, notifieable to the FC through Tree Alert. According to them, no known treatments.

They tend to want what is best for the tree surgeon. I gave up hoping otherwise a long time ago.