daltontrees

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.

The cost of £500k insurance compared with £1M is not a lot less. £500k wouldn't cover the cost of a negligence fatality case. Many clients nowadays won't accept less tha £1m cover, the last tender I looked at, for BS5837 work, insisted on £2m. As Mark Bolam suggests, no point in taking out cover if you don't have the qualifications. Don't get me wrong, brokers will take your money, but if you read the small print you won't be covered if you do work that you're not qualified to do. Bit like these lifejackets being made out of bubble wrap and flogged to Syrian emigrants to cross the med. It may look like a lifejacket, but it's a bit late to find out it's not one when you're drowning.

I agree with that. And getting PI cover is not the end of it, your insuracne eitehr will be unobtrainable or will not cover youy if you do work outside your competence. Clients are often paying for the consultant to adopt the risk. There's no way round that by making advice informal. They'd be as well getting 'free' advice from a tree surgeon, and just accept that often tree surgeons have no incentive to do anything but recommend work be done on the trees, whether they need it or not.

According to AFAG402 "A minimum of two people should be present during all tree-climbing operations. One of the ground team must be available, competent and equipped to perform an aerial rescue without delay." Personally I think it is OTT to require an aerial rescuer to be present for all bat insections. Firstly no chainsaws will be used, thus greatly reducing the risk of any harm and also the severity of any possible harm. Secondly the heights I attain during bat inspections are less than for tree work operations, thicker stems and limbs, low chances of slipping or falling due to anchor generally being well above the work/inspection position. Thirdly NPTC says that aerial resuce is not appropriate for trees that are in a hazardous condition, so it's almost impossible to have a situation where the tree is so poor that it can be climbed but aerial rescue is not allowed. Fourthly, climbing inspections for bats are generally done very slowly and cautiously, the climber is assessing hazards in great detail before passing them, there is such a low chance of hazard failure again it's impossible to have a situation requiring rescue. So where does that leave one? Working as a specialist for an ecology or bat firm, you have to be covered by their risk assessment. If they want an aerial rescuer, they know they will have to pay a competent climber to stand there and drink tea at full climber's hourly/day rate. If they ask the climber to do all the RAMS, I think it is OK for the climber/inspector to assess the tree and recod tha the risks to the climber are minimal and thus waive the need for a rescuer to be present. Otherwise you will price yourself out of work. After all, the competent assessment of a tree for hazards before and during climbing is part of the arb's skills. On the other hand, if some huge company is paying and wants to be squeaky clean on H&S, it may prefer to pay for aerial rescuer. It also makes sense to climb SRT and have a ground-anchored rope. Rescue in almost all situations will be a lowering of the climber from the ground. A groundie can do that. Anyone with 2 hands can do that with a suitable friction device. If our industry is to be competitive in bat inspections, it probably needs to use its competences to eliminate unnecessary costs. That way repeat work comes. No-one is trying to put bat specialists out of work, but the recent BS provides for arbs to do low-grade inspections and I believe part of the rationale for that is that more bats will be protected if the cost and hassle of inspections is kept to a minimum. Me, I charge my usual climbing half-day rate including time spent writing stuff up and looking at jobs. It's an easy day physically compared to tree work. In conclusion I don't think AFAG was intended to be applicable to all bat inspections, as it's not a tree work operation. It is of course working at height, and as such comes under the WaH and LOLER Regulations. Having just looked at the former, it says that "Every employer shall ensure that work at height is (a) properly planned; (b) appropriately supervised; and © carried out in a manner which is so far as is reasonably practicable safe, and that its planning includes the selection of work equipment in accordance with regulation 7. Reference to planning of work includes planning for emergencies and rescue." And also "A personal fall protection system shall be used only if (a) a risk assessment has demonstrated that (i) the work can so far as is reasonably practicable be performed safely while using that system; and (ii) the use of other, safer work equipment is not reasonably practicable; and (b) the user and a sufficient number of available persons have received adequate training specific to the operations envisaged, including rescue procedures." For the avoidance of doubt a personal fall protection system includes rope access and positioning techniques, work positioning and resuce systems. So there seems to be scope for being satisfied that the risks are acceptably low then the planning can dispense with the need for aerial rescue, just as it can dispense with supervision. Rescue provision is only required that is 'specific to the operation envisaged'. Adequate rescue provisions might be self-rescue. But the customer is always right, he wants, he gets, he pays.

Yes, both forms of Nectria cinnabarina Keep it dry and it should stop.

If I'm looking at the right tree, the Council's arb view is this. "Advice from landscape and arboriculture officers on the issues raised is as follows. The judgement of officers is that the tree is of high amenity and aesthetic value and makes a positive contribution to the character of the area. This is of benefit to both residents and visitors. The tree is a cultivar of Lawson’s Cypress, a tree with a large number of cultivars from forest trees to dwarf trees which vary in their life expectancy. This tree is estimated to be around 90 to 100 years old with a substantial remaining safe useful life expectancy." Should be a refusal. But then again these things are never certain.