AA Teccie (Paul)

Certainly looks 'ArbAC' quality ("go on, you know you want to, ha!") AS matter of interest tho, and acknowledging you probably didn't spec it, but under the revised BS3998 regime the reference to 15% is deemed inprecise and potentially misleading as it could be interpreted differnt ways in terms of height reduction, full crown 'linear' reduction or full crown 'volume'. Further more there is then the interpretation by the climber of how much is 15%, so much scope to misinterpret and, dare I say, 'over prune' (NOT that I think that's the case here.) Anyhow, 'well done', gud'on'ya for posting (that's one thing, amongst many others, I like about 'ARBTALK' (thanks again Steve B...& co.))...and let me know where to send the 'ArbAC' application?...tee hee! Lastly IF the intention was a 15% crown volume reduction, using the BS3998 (2010) reference to 30% being equivalent to 12% linear, that would have meant about 6-8% linear measurement...wahtever that works out at! Cheers.. Paul PS Oh yeah, re the "snappy bits".....MEWP?

As a matter of interest, AND great if you're an insomniac, I attach a copy of an article from the latest 'ARB Mag' on the BS3998 seminars were are currently delivering AND, with grand permission of BSI, a 'summary of contents' of the actual document itself (which is simply an expanded version of the document contents pages.) Hopefully this will give you the opportuntiy, to some extent, to 'compare and contrast' the 2010 doc. against the '89' one and reassure yourself you need to purchase a copy...or visit your local library to view it. Cheers n 'happy reading'..! Paul PS We still have places available on the Welsh events next week, Tues. @ Wrexham & Thurs. @ Carmarthen, and they are, effectively, FoC (you just need to complete the booking form and provide credit card details...this will only be charged if you DON'T attend the event.) PPS If you align your business with the current standard you are about 9/10ths of the way to achieving 'ARB Approved Contractor' status..."THERE HE GOES AGAIN!!!" BS3998GN(v2).docx BS3998article.docx

HAZARD AND RISK ASSESSMENT (extract from AA 'A Guide to use of MEWPs in Arboriculture'...cost = £5) Not a usual format risk assessment but a very good starting point I would suggest. The guide also contains a 'work site assessment' form which is also worth a look. Cheers all.. Paul GUMA-Appendix 2 p54-56.pdf

Yup, I'd 2nd 'SKyhuck' presumption BUT would still double-check! Cheers.. Paul

Hi there, It was the 'ARB Approved Contractor' (ArbAC) Preparation Workshop for those contractors interested in achieving the accreditation. This one in particular was principally, but not exclsuively, aimed at small businesses seeking approval and was offered free (to ALL regardless of business size) as part of the 'promotion' which potentially offers them a 'free' assessment. Unfortunately we've flagged it up a few times here, on AA Facebook page and on AA website, but not enough takers to make it viable and we've now ahd to cancel the venue before significant cost were incurred. We will run another workshop in the future. Cheers.. Paul

Excellent, look forward to it! Cheers Hama.. Paul

Okay, sorry....Ooops, ha! Report back soon.. Cheers Hama. Paul

Sorry to those intending to come along but, due to lack of numbers hence not viable, we've had to cancel this event. We will try again in the future giving people more notice. Thanks for your interest and apologies for any inconvenience caused. Cheers.. Paul

Hi Samwise, If, as I think, you are referring to the Euro. Tree Worker qualification then I beleive the only one so far in the UK took place earlier in the year at BTS (Ipswich.) You may wish to enquire with Reg Harris of Urban Forestry (Bury-ST-Edmonds) as I think he both helped organise it and attended it (email Reg Harris [[email protected]] ) Good luck. Paul

Teccie, Teccie...where r u????....SORRY AGAIN!!! SOunds as tho you may be sorted now but I'm sure there's summat along these lines in the MEWPs Guide so will check if we have it as separate word doc. and post it later in the week. Cheers.. Paul

Hi Hama, apologies for the delay. It does I'm afraid, it's just there's been so much interest in the new 'msall business' option in the SE region we had to pick a date, before I go off on holiday, and this was it. Sorry for any inconvenience and there will be other workshops in the Autumn. Cheers.. Paul

John, apologies for the delay here. No worries about your membership number as, for this particular workshop, there's no difference in cost to members & non-members. See you there. Cheers.. Paul

Hi all, just a quick 'heads up' with further info to follow shortly. Due to increased demand (classic sales pitch!) we plan to run a 'preparation' workshop in the SE region at Cowfold, nr Horsham, W. Sussex on Thurs. 14th July 2011. The cost for this event will be £50 (+VAT) per delegate...inc. lunch and beverages. Thanks all.. Paul PS Here's the further info link: http://www.trees.org.uk/training-events/Training/ARB-Approved-Contractor-Preparation-Workshop

Phew...thanks 'Arbgirl', I have to admit to floundering a bit then...oops! Here's some other info which is generic even tho refers to Wokingham event. Date: 14th July 2011 Venue: Wokingham, Berkshire Course objectives To enable course members to: Explain the relevance and purposes of tree valuation in the UK Describe the historical context of tree valuation and how the various methods were introduced. Describe the four key valuation methods: Helliwell CAVAT CTLA i-Tree Explain the different purposes for which tree valuation is required. Recognise the influencing factors in setting valuation criteria. Understand the procedures used to calculate tree value using each system. Compare and contrast the four systems in terms of ease of use, application to different circumstance and outcomes. Explain how a financial value is derived from unitary figures Who is the course aimed at? Those involved with trees as a contractor, consultant, local authority planning or tree officer, landscape architect, etc. Pre-requisites No specific qualification or experience required Duration 1 day Course content Introduction and background. A description and explanation of each of the four tree valuation methodologies: The Helliwell System CAVAT CTLA i-Tree The systems applied in practice: Two ‘example trees’ will be valued using all four systems to provide a comparison. Question and answer session and discussion. Summary, conclusions and close. Materials provided Ring binder with course notes. Supporting literature relating to all four valuation systems. Certification Arboricultural Association attendance certificate.

With a growing number of methodologies for putting a value on trees there is growing debate about which is best, which is most appropriate and which one to use in which situation. 'What's it worth' is an Arb Association workshop day that will look at the four main ways of valuing amenity trees. A first for the UK - the workshop will bring together the key experts and proponents of each system whose knowledge and understanding of their respective methods cannot be matched. • The Helliwell system - Rodney Helliwell • CTLA - Adam Hollis • CAVAT - Chris Neilan • i-Tree - Kenton Rogers. Each presenter will describe the relevant system and explain its origin and intended application, with opportunity for questions and discussion. Each presenter will also value two "example" trees using their system so a direct comparison can be made and the intricacies of the differences between them can be explored. Venues in Berkshire (14 July), Somerset (29 September) and Warwickshire (13 October) can be booked by clicking here and scroll to ‘What’s it worth?’.

Hi Arbgirl, Don;t know anything about the 'case' but in response about does CROW outweigh OLA...I think probably not. The Act is clear, and explicit, that landowners have a 'duty of care' to visitors/users of their land, despite whether invited or not (two Acts 1954 & 1987...or thereabouts.) In terms of the CROW 'natural features' scenario whihc Tony mentioned, I would assume this perhaps gives ground for mitigation in certain circumsatnces but fundamentally the 'DoC' remains and the landowner must do what is deemed 'reasonable'....that's another discussion but hopefully (very) soon to be issued NTSG (National Tree Safety Group) guidance will help us here. Cheers.. Paul

Tony, thank you for clarifying that. I think, in particular with a landowner such as the NT, that it is of the utmost importnace to make a clear statement in their Tree Management Policy that the benefits of trees on THEIR land include wildlife / ecology / habitat etc. such that it is then, hopefully, acknowledged that oftne the older and more 'knackered' (technical term!) a tree is, the greater value it will have in this regard and hence the associated 'acceptable risk level' will inevitably higher....I think! Cheers.. Paul

Hi Tony, not that I've realy got time to go here...BUT needs must! IN terms of the "inspection regime" being appropriate, and acknowledging the reality of 'available resource' and 'scale of the site', are not the primary considerations ones of 'risk', i.e. likleyhood of failure and targets etc., such that if it was deemed 'high' risk appropriate resources would need to be made available...somehow. I guess it's the principal of the issue here as to what actually dictates 'risk' and I'm not sure to what extent a lack of available resources given such a large scale site would 'defend / mitigate' liability. Interetsing comments about the CROW Act which I wasn't aware of and at what stage to trees become 'natural features' I wonder? Thanks.. Paul

As always with mature (?) trees is never just one factor but a combination of biotic and abiotic which accumulatively tip the balance...wonder if Armellaria might also pop up in September? Cheers.. Paul

Hi Andy, I guess, given the relative rarity of the event, no-one ever expected the tree branch to fall and therefore would not have judged the risk / likelihood (whilst acknowledging the tragedy, and as a parent myself I can't imagine!, 'hindsight' make the less, or 'none', obvious seem just that.) The National Tree Safety Group (NTSG, see Forestry Commission - National Tree Safety Group - Guidance) are shortly to issue guidance to tree owners on the need for, and frequency of, etc. tree inspections and thsi may give an additional 'steer' to the likes of the NT. Reading the article, which just highlights the case is 'ongoing', the key factor would seem to be one of professional difference in relation to the 'risk' the tree posed. The NT, seemingly, placed it in the 'medium' category, and presumably the amended the inspection frequency and type accordingly, whereas the 'prosecutors' will doubtless view it as 'high/v high' risk given the outcome....again hindsight is undoubtedly a factor here. Nonetheless a tragedy for a family losing a young son, thoghts and sympathies are shared by all. Cheers.. Paul

Conkers, dare I say 'risk assessment' is the way forward here and, unlike the 'guard' business, HSE have renaiged here if it is demonstrated that a WP harness is adequate. Principally this is based around the likleyhood, or not as the case may be, of the operator being ejected from the bucket. An example would be working on a high speed road where there is an increased risk of HGV impact and 'ping' goes the operator...a FB harness would be required (the is the example HSE cited to me.) However in general usage 'no' a WP harness is fine AND more particularly where it is anticipated the climber may access the tree crown from the bucket for part of the operation (worth remembering!) Cheers.. Paul

Hi all, It has been suggested I post here to get better coverage for this proposed workshop: Wed. 13th July 2011 (10am-4pm) @ The Royal Highland Centre, Edinburgh I need more positive responses by 9am this Monday (27th June) as we need a minimum of 10 businesses to make it viable. Thanks n look forward to hearing from you either direct reply or 'pm'. Cheers.. Paul

See A Guide to the Use of MEWPs in Arboriculture and the front cover says it all really. As you say a contentious issue, and one not often seen, except from a HSE perspective and I reckon you'd have to work very hard at a site specific risk assessment to overcome this one. The Guide, to some extent, supercedes AFAG 403 'MEWPs' which doesn't mention this issue, but there is a real risk of cutting by the chainsaw to the MEWP operator when two persons are in the bucket as the 5m safety buffer is breached. Hmmm.... Take care out there..! Paul

Hi all, Yet further interest received but not quite the committed numbers to make it 'a runner'. Hence if you're "petering on the edge" I need your contact, either by 'pm' or reply to this email, before 9am this coming Monday 27th June as I then need to confirming the venue and flights etc. 'Fingers crossed'...thanks! Paul

Hi David, Unless you also run your own business, with your own clients and jobs, or have intentions to do so in the future, it probably wouldn't be of 'direct' use but may be ''of interest'. Cheers.. Paul