AA Teccie (Paul)

Much speculation, understandably, possible "contributory negligence" could be leveled at the injured party for not following published industry guidance which could affect any pay-out..."could!" (not would.) To the OP - I think it's a question for your insurer to hopefully give you peace of mind. ATB and 'stay safe' Paul

Arboricultural Association - Aerial Inspections: Guide to Good practice WWW.TREES.ORG.UK A source of publications, guidance notes and leaflets for arboriculturists. Competitively priced available to members and non-members.

reading opportunities (many) including: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/managing-ash-dieback-in-england AshDieback-GuidanceNote-web.pdf The situation you describe is not uncommon and one would hope for pragmatic solutions with the LPA...good luck.

Two phrases come to mind..."in the dark", in many respects, and "in splendid isolation", the way many were before ARBTALK. I too have learned, and continue to learn, lots...and hope to occasionally give a little back. Thanks Steve, et al

🤝 n time to move on pls (hope the emoji thing is a handshake...apologies if not.) 😇 😂 ATB

Good morning, I represent the Arb Association here, an industry body / trade association (not a regulator), we seek to offer guidance to the industry to meet H&S regulations, including W@H (hence my response to the OP.) I do not represent the industry. Going forward, whilst I'm very happy to offer comment to help interpret current industry guidance, I'm not willing to engage further on non-associated matters. Thank you. Paul

I'm no legal expert but I do understand the basis of H&S regulations being H&S qualified. (Please don't be confused by my log-in remaining active, I don't usually log out of the site, perhaps I should.)

Two independent anchors should be used wherever possible, which is likely to be in most cases, but the guidance does allow for a shared anchor where 2 separate ones aren't available, i.e. the exception - two systems (primary & backup) on a suitable shared anchor is still deemed to be safer than a single system.

1. Industry guidance - has no direct legal status, that is contained in the Work at Height Regulations (but it is guidance endorsed by HSE, the workplace regulator.) 2. Some time ago. Not sure 'what else' I might have answered with. Paul

Hi John, "The rules" are detailed here https://www.trees.org.uk/News-Blog/Latest-News/Tree-work-at-height-–-Regulations-and-guidance Your method of work (climbing) would not meet the rules I'm afraid as, almost without exception, you need to have two separate systems at all times, ideally attached to two independent anchors. ATB Paul

Sorry, 'labour-only subcontractors'

PS just noticed I'm a Veteran Member ...when do I become 'Ancient' (anybody else there yet?)

BUT you could put one pair of socks on AND some leg-warmers and that would be fine, lol

Sorry, just to clarify, the first point applies equally to employees and self-employed people working for a business, i.e. it's not a case of "one rule for one and not for the other" (albeit often more difficult to get compliance.)

Thanks for your pragmatic post here. A couple of things in reply: - If your in climbing in the workplace then whilst your life might primarily be your responsibility, it is also your employers responsibility and hence they should ensure you operate in accordance with any current industry guidance, e.g. Technical Guide 1 - Sect. 6 (see https://www.trees.org.uk/Book-Shop/Products/Technical-Guide-1-Tree-Climbing-Aerial-Rescue-en ) - This guidance, and from the associated industry code of practice, does not require the use of "two ropes", although that's how it's always interpreted AND often the solution businesses adopt (a 'belt-n-braces' approach to some extent, and the most suitable technique in many situations.) The guidance requires the use of a primary system (climbing rope) AND a backup system - this can be a 2nd rope, but can be the other-end of the same rope - can be a long adjustable lanyard - can be a belay system - can be a flip-line when sectioning down. Hence there is a range of options available (the example you mention, a smaller tree with congested crown (eg fastigiate hornbeam or whitebeam maybe) could be a climbing line plus lanyard e.g.) When cutting, a 3rd lanyard / anchor should be used to aid work positioning and/or where there may be a risk to the 'personal fall protection system' (the primary PLUS backup.) Technical Guide 2 - Sect. 9 (see https://www.trees.org.uk/Book-Shop/Products/Technical-Guide-2-Use-of-Tools-in-the-Tree ) Hope this clarifies things a bit. ATB Paul

I'm not aware that Chris and Matt snapped any ropes load-testing the systems...probably a good job I didn't try tho..

FYI from the industry technical guide https://www.trees.org.uk/Book-Shop/Products/Technical-Guide-1-Tree-Climbing-Aerial-Rescue-en see below also: FYI

I'd forget the codes now tbh (which appear to have changed recently, perhaps coinciding with the introduction of the new C&G NPTC 'cpd' courses) not least as LANTRA now also offer chainsaw qualifications with their own, different, codes. Stick to the qualification title which is consistent (I believe, and the LANTRA quals. I've seen to date bear this out.) AAMOI the new NPTC cpd units are accepted by BALI as refreshers for CSCS / LISS Card purposes. Regards, Paul

Long been a bone of contention but it's simply BSI's policy and pricing structure (currently £254 non-member.) There is a cheaper 'Plan B' option (but doesn't include the appendices which are quite useful) see https://www.treelifeac.co.uk/page/bs3998 Regards, Paul

A combination of HC leaf-miner (Camereria) affecting the leaves, and probably HC leaf-blotch *Guignardia) and, as you say bleeding-canker (Pseudomonas) whihc gives the rusty brown appearance as it dries. Prognosis is generally not good and dependent upon tree tree's vitality they can succumb to Honey Fungus (Armellaria) as a secondary infection problem (very common.) There has been drought stress too so that will contribute. However I'm not aware it increases propensity to limb failure particularly, or indeed tree failure (although HF can contribute to this if present.) They look at their worst at their at this time of year and hence I wouldn't rush to a decision about removal.

Hi Ben, I can't remember the detail tbh as it was so long ago since I did the NEBOSH qual. Presumably much will be based around the HSE guidance ("5 steps" approach) and general info as detailed here Managing risks and risk assessment at work – Overview -HSE WWW.HSE.GOV.UK As an employer, you must make a 'suitable and sufficient assessment' of risks to your employees' health and safety... Also you clearly have "working examples" which may have relevance. You could also post in the ArbAC FB page as I know of others who have recently completed the NEBOSH.

An option is to do an online MH training course to cover the principles, and/or https://www.lantra.co.uk/course/manual-handling-awareness , and then 'in-house' to give a working application on site (perhaps as a TBT type approach gaining signatures from attendees.)

Hi, this may be of help / interest...good luck. https://www.trees.org.uk/Careers

Hi Kevin, I'm not quite sure where my small contribution here fits into your expansive post but if the planning condition (PC) is such that it expires (discharges) on completion of the development one would hope it would be relatively short-term (not 20-30 years, hopefully.) Also, my understanding is that PCs are unlikely to be enforceable after 10 years and the guidance is such that if the intention of the LPA is to retain trees long term the TPO is the correct mechanism for doing so, not the PC. My view of PCs in this situation is that they are imposed to almost screen the development during the construction process as they often involve peripheral trees and hedges. The TO stance / response seems reasonable and if the OP is considering undertaking works as described he would be well advised to seek detailed advice prior. Cheers, n hope you're well. Paul

Thank you Joe. I'm logging off now...ATB