AA Teccie (Paul)

Ideally documented on the 'emergency arrangements' section of the site risk assessment but "yes"...HSE have previously acknowledged the same. Paul

As Jim said...BUT it must be 'direct' supervision, not cursory!

Hi all, as heads up for the next workshop event to get an insight to the AC Scheme, what's involved and how it might benefit your business. For further info and booking please see https://www.trees.org.uk/Training-And-Events/Course-Detail?id=35964019-0348-4309-B93F-DF5543D08F4E Hoping to meet you there.. Regards, Paul

..and ideally by a professional tree surgeon.

A long shot, as it's discretionary powers and many LAs don't adopt it, but if it really is foreseeable and you've made all reasonable attempts to resolve it, and can demonstrate / evidence such, the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act (Sect. 23 - Dangerous Trees) may offer a solution...ONLY MAY! Perhaps you could also quote this to the tree owner to encourage his reasonableness..

Scissor-lift n poles poss? Perhaps remind the tree owner your client is prepared to meet the cost of him better meeting his "duty of care" responsibilities / potential liabilities...given there've already been failures and therefore it would probably meet the "foreseeability test" Good luck..

I agree, entirely, but many of us are speaking morally and responsibly here, and rightly so, but the guidance as to when is a subcontractor effectively an employee, as far as EL insurance is concerned, is open to interpretation / challenge. I guess the acid test, perhaps, wuddav been to report the accident under RIDDOR and hope the HSE investigated the matter. Cheers Jim, hope you're well (n Jo.) Paul

Thuya...pretty sure

Can I frame that one Mick?

Presumably the first claim will be on the landscaping firm's insurance who, in turn, will seek to claim on yours...probably. And this is a public liability insurance situation, which isn't a legal requirement (here in UK anyway) rather than EL. which is. Fingers crossed either way..

Perhaps the phrase "a grey area" wasn't the best turn of phrase, maybe "open to interpretation" would have been a better one. Do I need employers’ liability insurance for all the people who work for me? You are only required by law to have employers’ liability insurance for people who you employ under a contract of service or apprenticeship. Whether or not you need employers’ liability insurance for someone who works for you depends on the terms of your contract with them. This contract can be spoken, written or implied. It does not matter whether you usually call someone an employee or self-employed or what their tax status is. Whether you choose to call your contract a contract of employment or a contract for services is largely irrelevant. What matters is the real nature of your relationship with the people who work for you and the nature and degree of control that you have over the work they do. Hence, as I mentioned, that is why we make EL a condition of the scheme, which has been challenged several times.a

Something of a grey area potentially, as I understand it, and hence under the scheme we make it (EL insurance) mandatory regardless. Tbh I think it would be a legal case to determine the situation but I think it would be a civil rather than statute case, i.e. EL Compulsory Insurance Act.

In fairness to NR, unless the tree root causes damage, they don't have to act to remove it or prevent future root encroachment. Again a cost factor, and never 100% successful (I'm lead to believe) but maybe a root barrier could be installed along the boundary to reduce the likelihood of future problems.

Whilst the leaf on the sucker would seem fairly definitive, and that should probably be enough, you could have a root analysis identification undertaken by, for instance, https://www.jcaac.com/tree-root-identification/ to reinforce the issue...the drawback being cost of course. What's the concern, potential future (direct) damage to the wall...the tree probably won't live long enough to do so? In principle, regardless of it being NR land, the 'common-law right' to cut back to the property boundary, which applies to both above and below tree parts, i.e. branches and roots, exists. That said, clearly if in so doing tree stability is compromised and subsequently fails causing damage (clearly not the case here) one could find oneself in rather a sticky position

Pension planning becomes relevant and interesting ..

Thanks for supporting Arb Assoc (AA) here. Regarding the article supplied, very interesting, but relates to 'tree' risk assessment, i.e. likelihood of tree failure etc., whereas the OP was relating to Health & Safety / operational risk assessments to protect workers from hazards...possibly including tree failure of course. thanks again Paul

Sure others will "offer up" but an alternative could be to join the Arb Assoc as an Ordinary / Foundation Member (£65 per year which can be paid as monthly DD) and you can access the 'Help for Arborists' resources on the website, inc. RAMS docs. See https://www.trees.org.uk/Membership/Membership-Grades/Foundation for further info. Cheers, Paul

Shame, a nice tree...in the wrong place "see above" PS Check for usual TPOs etc.

Hi there, pop a postcode here and several should appear in that region https://www.trees.org.uk/ARB-Approved-Contractor-Directory Regards, Paul

...and maybe Maze Gill on the old pruning wound

Whilst there have been some success stories involving the application / injection of phosphites it has to be done regularly to maintain the control effect. Unless it really is a special tree, in which case phosphites may be worth a try but very few tree surgeons can apply it, I would enjoy it during flowering and consider removal thereafter and replacement plant with a nice alternative species, small-leaf Lime (Tilia cordata) is one of my favs but there are many others. In terms of finding a good tree surgeon, I'm sure if you say whereabouts you are then "one will be along shortly" ...failing that you could try here www.trees.org.uk Regards, Paul PS You should check with your local council for any controls, mainly tree preservation orders (TPOs) or Conservation Areas, or possibly planning conditions , which may require you to obtain permission first...."just in case."

As Martin says the brown spots will doubtless be leaf-miner which is now endemic and whilst doesn't directly cause a particular problem it's far from ideal and the trees look very poor from mid-summer onwards as the miners feed and the leaves brown and often fall. Crown reduction and/or bracing, if required, is an option but I'd probably avoid the latter in H. Chestnuts if using invasive techniques, i.e. breaching the bark layer, and do question whether it's viable really for the species as the longer term prognosis isn't great. In terms of the H&S implications given the proximity of the park/playground, this would be a consideration from a tree failure risk assessment point of view but it's often too easy to predict the worst and remove trees unnecessarily...or too soon (that said obviously I haven't seen the tree at close quarters nor the site and proximity.) At the end of the day the decision is yours, obviously, but I don't think you need to rush in "chainsaw-a-blazing" just yet and more particularly as it will soon be in flower and that's when it's at its best.

Structurally, with basal twin stems, the long-term outlook probably isn't great as a possibility of 'parting ways' but this would require a more detailed inspection of the union. Whilst there does appear to be some fluxing, possibly bacterial ooze, and cambial dysfunction (bark death) on the stem, I've seen much worse. Perhaps wait until it comes into leaf to better assess it's overall condition (vitality) and post back then. Regards, Paul

One of the many nice things about this site, and posters, you get the 'balance' right in terms of "work n play". Very funny indeed. Thanks all n keep'um'comin (NO pun intended! )

A couple of clarifications, if I may: 1. "..point them out, not in.." meaning point the gate outwards? (if so is there not a chance the rope will potentially load through the gate if snatched, for instance, which could fail?) 2. "See 0.46" ...what does this mean? Sorry, you can see I'm non-operational these days. Thanks, Paul