AA Teccie (Paul)

Hi DJM, I'm sure you'll get many good contacts from here, and probably more local to you, but you could also check out the following link for 'ARB' accredited contractors in your area: Directory of Tree Surgeons - Arboricultural Association Good luck, and hope the job goes well! Paul (I manage the scheme for the Association)

Thank YOU for the opportunity to comment, always happy to do so. Cheers 'High Scale' n have good weekend. Paul

Look at it from another angle, if anything untoward happened (even if not realted to the poor condition of the tree, nonetheless it would be scrutinised), could you defend having climbed it...did you have a written method statement or a justification on your risk assessment for so doing...is it defensible? I'm NOT saying the tree couldn't be climbed, nor indeed am I saying it can be, but the justification for so doing is down to you as the 'competent' person considering the WaH Regs and the requirement for adequate planning / organisation and supervision. Also what about 'aerial rescue', is there adequate options/strength of branches for that to be undertaken...God forbid. See the WaH Policy for TW Ops Help becoming an ARB Approved Contractor for further reading and considerations. Also you have mentioned rigging, which is probably a good thing...that you haven't mentioned it hopefully means you don't intend to...I would 'suggest'. Others are better placed than I to offer their opinions and justifications, either way but I certainly would be concerned if we were presented with that situation on an 'ArbAC' assessment. It would certainly have to be a very nice, calm day and with a very carefully considered approach, ideally documented in a method statement or at least on the site risk assessment (again see above link for advice on both + templates) and a very competent and expereinced arborist involved...and no rigging. Even then I'd still be concerned! Take care out there..! Paul

Have a look here maybe Forestry Journal Sorry if no good. Paul

In my mind the most important thing here would be securing 'tree friendly' tenants, otherwise the tree will come under increasing pressure for pruning and maybe removal. Re-deadwood, leave stubs in situ for the beasties as never really drops out anyway. Re-SBD, when does a frequent unforseeable act become forseeable, in other words the frequency of unexpected branch failures needs to be closely monitored and recorded, i.e. so you can defedn the INfrequency claim if challenged. Crackin tree...wished I stil climbed when I see such beauties! Cheers.. Paul

All these H&S accreditation schemes 'open doors', i.e. gives you the opportunity to tender for works, usually at the LA (Local Authority) / commercial sector level etc. as part of the pre qualification process. As you say no gaurantee of work tho, that comes down to 'pounds/shillings n pence', but hopefully gives further opportunities. Increasingly 'ARB Approved Contractor' is being seen, in addition to CHAS (which we currently DUAL AWARD) and SAFEcontractor (with whom we are currently 'in discussions' to acheive the same 'deemed to satisfy' arrangement), is being seen as the 'competence' benchmark for tree work contracts. This was echoed by seevral contractors attending our 'ArbAC Prep. Workshop' yesterday. AND don't forget for a small business, i.e. 'up to 5 people' (includes the employer), this is available for less than £500 per year....a 'BARGAIN' with a 'BOGOFF'...can you afford not to be 'ARB Approved'??? (comments on a postcard and with words of more than one syllabus and no f's please, ha!) Cheers all.. Paul

Probably alreday covered this but not time to back track...sorry. NPTC did remove CS33 large trees, I think on basis of lack of availabitity plus (as I understand it BUT haven't done it) the felling etc. techniques aren't that different to CS32. However owing to a representation being made by some large employers that they are concerned they may be deemed to be operating illegally if CS33 if removed before the CS32 assessment isd amended I believe they have (temporarily) reinstated it...or are considering so doing. IF in any doubt I'd check with NPTC direct Tel: +44 (0) 24 7685 7300 Cheers.. Paul PS Regarding 'expereince' being a qualification in it's own right I agree (kinda), when I did my NEBOSH qual. they described competence as a combination of 'Knowledge, Ability, Training and EXPERIENCE'...hence competent 'KATE'...and they did write the last word in capitals to emphasise it's importance, i.e. EXPERIENCE...but of course it has to be the right expereince and good expereince, often a 'rub off' from a good mentor....does that happen much anymore?!!!

The brief regarding tree-care.info is principally promotimng the ISA CA as a 'good' qualification for someone to hold who is undertaking tree work operations including advice....unfortunately it doesn;t help your predicament I'm afraid. In answer to your last question 'Yes' provided you are working under the DIRECT supervison of a competence certificate holder and you are 'in training'...hmmm! Cheers n speak further next week. Paul

I will enquire with NPTC whether there's any opportunity to APL (accredited for prior learning) but because of the regulatory requirement under PUWER 98 (Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998) requiring chainsaw certificates of competence I think it will be unlikely to be honest...but I will ask (next week now, hope that's okay!) Operational 'competence' is absolutely the key to safe and proficient chainsaw use BUT the regulators require certification to demonstrate this in the first instance. Speak next week. REgards.. Paul

Hi there, nice to hear you'd like to work in good old 'blighty'..! Forgive my ignorance of how the ISA CA scheme operates in the US but do you have any certification recognising your competence as a chainsaw operator (in particular, as these operations are subject to regulatory controls in the UK) or is it implicit in the qualification? I understand for instance, that in New Zealand they operate a chainsaw competency scheme which is not dis-similar to that of the NPTC system in the UK. What happens here, as I understand it, is that HSE (the Health & Safety Executive, the government dept charged with responsibility for workplace safety AND also the enforcement body) are fairly relaxed about NZ operators with their national scheme evidence operating for upto 12months but theerafter they expect them qualify under the UK recognised system, i.e. NPTC. Once I know more about your situation I can enquire further on your behalf. Regards.. Paul (Paul Smith, Tech. Officer with the Arboricultural Association email direct [email protected])

This is a first.... THANK YOU Sir. Paul

Phewwwww...my 'street cred' lives to fight another day, ha! The FC Research Note on HC Bleeding Canker also mentions this on Lime. Cheers Hama.. Paul

Hama, thank you. I beleive that 'real' learning only occurs when college leavers start to 'touch trees' (thanks to the late, great Dr. Shigo). The trouble then of course is that unless they have a very good mentor their skills either never develop, or do so by trial and error. That's why 'ARBTALK', people like you HIGH SCALE, RUPE and many others, are vital to improving standards bu posting such good examples of completed works...it's just such a shame that this is not 'the norm' across the industry. Thank you all and please keep going! Cheers.. Paul

Thanks again High Scale, I cud do this all day, i.e. critique quality work, another very good job. Presumably the spec was to balance the crown, as the left hand side on viewing is reduced 'heavier' than the right and with a 15-20%, or thereabouts. Knockin on the door of a 9/10 here...well done! Thanks again. Paul PS Have to get back to the day job now but will chekc back later....cheers!

Oh I hate going first...where's Hama or MonkeyD??? It looks very similar of Phytophthora citricola whihc does occur on Limes, albeit far less frequently than HC. Hmmm, hopefully the real experts will now come to my rescue. Cheers.. Paul

High Scale, thank you. As a matter of interest I would pass this on an AAC assessment but with a comment that the height reduction is 'heavier' than the rest of the crown (judged by the size of the rpuning wounds in the center), obvioulsy I haven't seen the spec and if that's waht was intended then fine. Also I would mention a caution when reducing smaller branches back to what are effectively twigs, as secondary growth points, that if they fail, i.e. blow off in high winds, then you're kinda left with seemingly an internodal cut or elongated stub. That said Sycamore (hope my ident is up to the post?!) is difficult to reduce in this respect. All in all, good effort 8/10...well done. Thanks again for posting, that's what I find reassuring about this forum. Gud'on'ya..! Paul

Quote: Originally Posted by TimberCutterDartmoor Wish tree officers and their leaflets were more balanced; around here they hate reductions quoting, epicormic and waste of time etc etc I hear this an awful lot 'up, down and across' the country and whilst I'm certainly not advocating the appeal process, not least as it hits the public purse strings hard, it an available option. However, better to be proactive, rather than reactive, so why not get to togther as a collective group, i.e. many contractors in one LPA area, and make a representation to the Council. To add strength to your argument refer to Table B.1 of the new BS3998 where it cites many situations, including 'to manage light and shade', where crown reduction is considered "often appropriate". Yes, from the LPA point of view crown reduction, involving an overall reduction of the size of the tree, inevitably reduces the associated 'visual amenity' (the key criteria for a TPO) BUT, in many situations, it will likely increase the longevity of the tree and create a more 'harmonious' and 'sustainable' relationship between the owner and the tree.....and save the LPA TO repeated tel complaints and time consumin spurious applications. Further IF the overall objective is to achieve a 30% reduction, which LPA's particularly don't like, why not go for a phased approach of 15% + 15% with a 2 year break in between. You may say the client wouldnn't go for this but if it achieved their overall objective, albiet not straight away, then I think many would. IF you have a forward thinking LPA this could be done as an indivdiual tree management plan and consented in one go. Obvioulsy it would need to be appropriately conditioned, to ensure it was 15+15 3 years later AND a require to notify the LPA 5 working days beforehand etc. etc. BUT I think it could work. Sorry this all sounds a bit "fluffy bunny"...I'm going (GONE!) maddddd!!! Hpe it to be of interest, and use, and gentle negotiations are the way forward. Good luck...keep me posted! Cheers.. Paul. PS As a matter of interest I expected their to be a lower of resistance to TPO apps to reduce trees on the basis of 'light loss' when the 'High Hedges Bill' came in whihc seeks to address the very same issue.

SORRY...ME again! In a nutshell, the reasoon why we include 'crown thinning' is because it's a very good test of a contractors pruning skills competence, still very much at the core of the 'ArbAC' accreditation. Still, we often see 'lions tailing' presented as CTN which is something of a concern. Crown thinning is a recognised pruing operation in BS3998 (and the Euro Tree Pruning Guide, where it also has a diagram!) and often appropriate in many situations related to managing light and shade. The requirement, as a minimum, is to produce 2 examples of crown thinning (as well as 2x crown reductions....and 1x standard tree planting) and the first example MUST be a 'pure' crown thinning ideallyundertaken to a tree with a maiden crown, i.e. not previoulsy worked (except maybe CL'd). IF theerefater, and provided example 1 is a 'pucker' job, the 2nd example is an extension toa crown clean for instance, or a modified thin of branch regrwoth from previous 'heavy reduction', that's fine. ..and it's only once every 4 years* it needs to be demonstarted so please make the effort to impress, perhaps even CTN a tree FOC if none recently available as it may avoid the need for a revisit (incurring additional assessment fees.) *Yes we do now reassess in Yr.3, i.e. 2 years on from approval, AND we do recheck work quality standards BUT whilst the above operations are deemed mandatory as part of a full assessment/reassessment, the interim assessment is not prescriptive, i.e. show us some tree work you've done locally in the last few months. Right, I'm off...thanks for yer time all! Cheers.. Paul

I hear this an awful lot 'up, down and across' the country and whilst I'm certainly not advocating the appeal process, not least as it hits the public purse strings hard, it an available option. However, better to be proactive, rather than reactive, so why not get to togther as a collective group, i.e. many contractors in one LPA area, and make a representation to the Council. To add strength to your argument refer to Table B.1 of the new BS3998 where it cites many situations, including 'to manage light and shade', where crown reduction is considered "often appropriate". Yes, from the LPA point of view crown reduction, involving an overall reduction of the size of the tree, inevitably reduces the associated 'visual amenity' (the key criteria for a TPO) BUT, in many situations, it will likely increase the longevity of the tree and create a more 'harmonious' and 'sustainable' relationship between the owner and the tree.....and save the LPA TO repeated tel complaints and time consumin spurious applications. Further IF the overall objective is to achieve a 30% reduction, which LPA's particularly don't like, why not go for a phased approach of 15% + 15% with a 2 year break in between. You may say the client wouldnn't go for this but if it achieved their overall objective, albiet not straight away, then I think many would. IF you have a forward thinking LPA this could be done as an indivdiual tree management plan and consented in one go. Obvioulsy it would need to be appropriately conditioned, to ensure it was 15+15 3 years later AND a require to notify the LPA 5 working days beforehand etc. etc. BUT I think it could work. Sorry this all sounds a bit "fluffy bunny"...I'm going (GONE!) maddddd!!! Hpe it to be of interest, and use, and gentle negotiations are the way forward. Good luck...keep me posted! Cheers.. Paul. PS As a matter of interest I expected their to be a lower of resistance to TPO apps to reduce trees on the basis of 'light loss' when the 'High Hedges Bill' came in whihc seeks to address the very same issue.

"Unit 30..2 Crosscut and stack small diameter timber using a chainsaw For cross cutting there must be sufficient timber on site for cross cutting and at least one piece of timber must have a diameter of 200-380mm (8”-15”) to accommodate a boring cut to sever log 8. Crosscut timber under guidebar length to a given specification." The above is all taken from the NPTC CS30 Assessment Schedule on theri website. In summary it would indicate that 380mm (15") is the max. size of timber to be cross-cut under a CS30 ticket. However, as we all know and all do, much larger timbers are cut in reality. Consider obtaining CS32 would be my advice which states: "Crosscut stems over guidebar length in diameter to a given specification." Hope this to be of use. Cheers.. Paul

Hmmm, that's not as I understand it. CL are one of the founder members of the 'SSIP' (Safety Schemes in Procurement) organsiation, an initiative started by HSE and CHAS and hence should be deemed to satisfy. I'll make some enquiries. Cheers.. Paul

I reckon so....but perhaps that's no surprise. In reality, as with all accreditations schemes inc. ArbAC (or perhaps not as industry specific and beneficial for a business to check it's compliance/competnece with external audit), I guess its largely driven by client demands. Many large organisation/Government Depts. require CL as a prerequiste to the tendering process, i.e. no have it = no quoting!, and it covers broad range H&S, financials, insurance, Directors etc. As a matter of interest, currently unlike CHAS, CL do not vet/check you H&S docs. they simply 'hang' them on their database for others to see....and check, i.e. satisfy themselves. However IF you are CHAS Accredited then you need only submit your current, valid, certificate. Hope this of interest. Cheers, n good luck. Paul

Coz it's part of my job and I'd get sacked, potentially, if I weren't. Ta fer askin. P.

That's fine ("an old chest freezer"), just don't forget the appropriate signage...."NO FROZEN CHIPS TO BE STORED IN HERE!", ha! It wouldn't be the first time, albeit as a pesticide store. THANK YOU for your support Frank, much appreciated. Cheers.. Paul

Clearly someone's not been reading their new (2010) BS3998 (p.31 sect. 7.10)...probably because it's covered in paint tins! Take my hat off to you tho, painting is one of my many pet hates, so whenever I'm forced to do so by 'Mrs Smith' (NOT AJ) I always make a hash of it....usually take about 5 years for her to forget and ask (TELL ME) again! Sorry...it would be 'topping', an indiscriminate and damaging way of cutting trees...commonly done and sometimes justified AND often the trees (seemingly) happily grow back....aghhhhh!!! Thanks n hope yer finished soon..! Paul Paul