AA Teccie (Paul)

9 hours ago, Steven P said:

I was going to add that some specialised fibre optics also have a LV pwer cable in them or are routed along side one. If you have the budget to do the training then it will add a confidence to the customer

Absolutely - and at least now there's no longer a requirement to 're-certify' every 3 years (I don't believe), it reverts to the normal 5 yearly update / refresher training recommendation.  

8 hours ago, sime42 said:

 

 

 

Last year, fully dressed in it's leaves, that tree didn't look too bad at all, you could barely see anything amiss with it.

 

Be wary of classifying Ash trees looking "not too bad at all" based on a new norm for Ash trees (because of ADB) - there's an isolated specimen in the middle of the estate where I live and, granted it's semi-mature so good vitality, but I sometimes have to remind myself what species it is because it really does "fully dress" (see p.11 of the attached. - p.14 shows the 'recognised' 4 stages (classes) of decline (Stage 3 & 4 = MEWP / grapple-saw etc.)

Tree-Council-Ash-dieback-tree-owners-guide-FINAL.pdf

A very interesting insight by Nick Potts (Arbjobs.com)

Pretty sure that's not KD - don't know what it is, summat saprophytic on the deadwood present. 

Refer to the ARBTALK fungi guide to compare...please don't fell the tree without definitive confirmation, and further investigations (if required.)

Cheers..  

My understanding is that the Utility quals. do expire after 3 years (but this appears to show on the NPTC card rather than certificate) the general NPTC quals. don't expire BUT, as a professional user, there is a requirement for refresher training every 5 years (as per HSE indg 317 & AFAG/FISA 805 Training & Certification guidance.)

Hence Lantra offer a full suite of refresher training courses and, recently, C&Gs / NPTC have started to offer 'CPD Units' as a refresher option, in effect.

As far as the Approved Contractor Scheme is concerned we will acknowledge 'up-skilling' as adequate refresher training, i.e. small - medium - large tree felling OR chainsaw in tree - aerial tree rigging etc., but some utility & commercial clients don't accept the same.

In an ideal world, on an individual basis, operators should be subject to a skills analysis exercise and any problems / opportunities identified and refresher training tailored. 

Hope this to be of help.

Cheers.
Paul  

Competence is borne from training, however that might be delivered / received (usually Lantra these days) and it is this aspect that I understand "the courts" focus on in accident / HSE cases, i.e. "evidence of adequate training" (MHSWR), rather than the PUWER CoC etc. requirements which tends to be more the insurance industry's domain (along with commercial requirements etc.)

Without doubt, if any employees are felling trees they must be 'trained' and should be qualified (NPTC etc.)

Regards

Paul 

Good morning - assuming these to be more 'technical', rather than practical skills courses, you may wish to also take a look at our website (Arb. Assoc.) which also includes some free learning opportunities with the various Webinars available..."at your leisure"

Never heard of 'ALISON' (not that one anyway.)

ATB Paul

One for your house insurers and/or a structural engineer to investigate and correctly establish the actual cause of the damage / cracking, probably involving a period of monitoring, as trees are often an easy target...but not always responsible.

Good luck..  

10 hours ago, Paul Cleaver said:

Ive only just found this thread by chance.

Tree surveyors shoud not use Matthecks equation literally, just a guide 

A big factor for me with hollow trees, is the trees vitality. Has the hollow tree had the vitality ( stored energy) to produce adaptive growth - butresses to compensate for strength loss in the trunk? Is the tree still producing adaptive growth? This can  be visable in the the summer with lighter wood. 

If it hasnt produced adaptive growth in the current year , you have to decide whether the tree has produce enough adaptive growth already  and doesnt need anymore, or the trees vitality is low and is not able to produce it.

 

A big factor for me is the size, and form, of the tree crown - once had an application to fell ("remove") a vet Oak on a development site based purely on the 'T/R' factor - the form of the tree with very low major limbs meant it couldn't fall over if it wanted to  

Whether T/R is valid or not (apologies for the pun, unintended) it has brought the issue of hollowness not being solely a reason to remove a tree to the fore...no bad thing.

Thanks..

Maybe worth a look here (also available as an e-book) - maybe the college(?) has a copy

In practice, and in the interest of being objective, many LPAs use something like the Helliwell System, or similar, to determine levels of amenity offered by a tree(2) to defend against objections.

Wouldn't consider felling without further inspection / investigation, e.g. Picus and/or resistograph...and a competent tree inspector / arboriculturist.  

The fungus may be Oyster Fungus (TBC!), common on Beech and saprophytic I believe, i.e.  deadwood colonising. The position, centrally within the wound possibly indicates good compartmentalisation, i.e. defence mechanism by the tree shutting off access to living wood.

In terms of being "an entry point" (for decay organisms), whilst there may be some validity to this for certain fungi, the current thinking (research - Lynn Boddy) is that many fungi are latent within the tree and pruning introduces oxygen which stimulates them and makes them active.

In summary, please don't fell the tree solely on the basis of the photograph - being in a children's pay area warrants a detailed inspection but doubtless it provides some level of shade benefit during hot, sunny days...plus of course all the other benefits of trees we know about (good firewood not included! lol)

Cheers,

Paul 

6 hours ago, TreeGreen said:

I believe I have identified who to contact with regards to accountability for the grounds - before I approach them; my question is - What is it reasonable for me to ask of them?

 

Ask them to explain how they are meeting their duty of care responsibility, as a land-owner, in relation to the trees in question - they are obliged to do what a reasonable / prudent person would do given the circumstances (also the reasonable expectations will likely vary from 'person to person' dependent on differing factors, e.g. one would normally expect a higher level from this person (I would suggest), directly or indirectly, than a home owner, but not the same level as a Council arboriculturist / tree expert...generally the more knowledge, and more resources, the greater the expectation.) 

Consider contributing to costs of works if you are the main / only beneficiary, and make this proposal known to said person when you meet / talk (bear in mind Conservation Area / Tree Preservation Order etc. restrictions if you are given permission to procure works to the trees.)

Have a look here https://ntsgroup.org.uk/guidance-publications/and/or engage a professional arboriculturist to advise / guide you.

I hope you get some reassurances from the landowner / manager but please bear in mind what attracted you to the locality in the first instance - perceived worries and threats can be very damaging to trees, spoiling lovely urban areas.   

ATB

Paul

This may also be of interest: 

Have a look here ('FYI') - presume there are other providers offering this too.

11 hours ago, Dk3001 said:

Generally I would consider pollarding above 2.4m

 

Hi there,

Can you please confirm that you mean "cutting at 2.4m above ground level", and why so prescriptive, i.e. is there a basis for this as seems quite prescriptive (BS3998 says 2-3m).

TIA

Paul 

They do sucker prolifically - as a previous TO we would drill and apply herbicide in the growing season and wait until we saw some decline then fell and drill / apply herbicide to the stump (not grind)...and then treat suckers with herbicide as necessary (and 'hope for the best' tbh - probably 2nd only to White Poplar for suckering.)

Good luck..

Bet that was the 'back roads' route...flip!

Hope the footie was good

In a nutshell, "yes", provided i) the trees meet the 'amenity test', which they certainly appear to from the photo, and ii) it's expedient, your proposed actions make it so, the TPO is appropriate. 

This doesn't mean you cannot undertake any 'cutting back', it means you will need to make an application under the TPO and the Council / Tree Officer has control over how much you can cut (they may allow some cutting back but less than you apply for, i.e. not back to the boundary, and of course may refuse it all together (in which case you can appeal but this is a very long process.))

You have 28 days to raise objections to the TPO, which you should consider.  

To conclude I would hope a 'compromise' is achievable and you should discuss this with the Tree Officer involved ASAP.

Regards, and hoping you find an acceptable compromise.

Paul 

Real sorry to hear that - assuming it's the same chap, I met him a good few years ago working with his brother for United Utilities in Cumbria - as you say as genuine, "down-to-earth" type, and a very competent arborist as I recall. 

"All good things come to an end eh" - RIP.

Hello, thanks for your post.

Firstly, under the circumstances, I would recommend you appoint an Arboricultural Consultant to advise and assist you with your application for a drop-crossing to your property.

Regarding the RPA, circumstantially, given the tree probably isn't 'open-grown' and hence is unlikely to have roots in the highway, they may not consider the simple radius determination to be applicable (the tree is likely to have more significant rooting running parallel with the highway and potentially at greater distance than one might usually expect - often species specific.)

In terms of what level of likelihood will there be of encountering roots at the specified RPA radius = 'some' (tree roots are often unpredictable and hence to excavate a (slit) trench is the only way to determine this.)

Regarding what constitutes a root, in this context - usually considered to be anything 25mm dia. or above. 

Hoping the above indicates why you need to engage an arb consultant.   

Good luck with your application.

Paul

PS In terms of where / how to engage a consultant - you can enquire here, you could ask your Council if they can direct you, or you can look here https://www.trees.org.uk/Registered-Consultant-Directory  or here https://icf.datawareonline.co.uk/Directory-of-Consultants

..including Tom (TD Trees..)

https://www.trees.org.uk/~-Trees-org-uk-media-Trees-org-uk-Inner-20Page-4?postcode=FK9 4LA&radius=62

Forgive my seeming 'sales pitch' (entirely circumstantial) but here's a good start (I think): 

Hi Paul, thanks for this post - just to clarify, as defined buttressing (not a great term, sorry) is characteristic of Sycamore IME, that this is reaction growth resulting in buttress expansion (and enclosure / inclusion) because of the internal decay caused by the fungus?

Just trying to better understand the situation as, on the face of it, I'm not sure I'm seeing, or maybe not recognising, what I should be (perhaps its more obvious on site.)

TIA

Paul

Just now, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Hi there - this may be of relevance / use (as technically anybody working on, or placing cones & signage on, the highway should be NRSWA qualified, including operating the chipper roadside etc.):

NRSWA Unit 2 Signing, Lighting and Guarding Training - Unit 2

NRSWA-COURSES.CO.UK

---

NRSWA Unit 2 Signing, Lighting and Guarding Operative Course UK Wide Regular Open Courses Run, or save money with In-House Courses Call Now!

 

Apologies - I've just realised this is a link to a 'training providers' website - hence this is NOT a recommendation for them - it's just a link FYI.

Paul