AA Teccie (Paul)

There is a previous response from Head Office, including input from John on p.5 mid-way down, which concludes with an invitation to contact / email him directly to discuss further ([email protected])

He's seen the thread and invited people to contact him directly to discuss it if they wish to.

From the .gov.uk website: Tree Preservation Orders and trees in conservation areas - GOV.UK WWW.GOV.UK Explains the legislation governing Tree Preservation Orders and tree protection in conservation areas. What about trees in a conservation area that are not protected by a Tree Preservation Order? Trees in a conservation area that are not protected by an Order are protected by the provisions in section 211 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. These provisions require people to notify the local planning authority, using a ‘section 211 notice’, 6 weeks before carrying out certain work on such trees, unless an exception applies. The work may go ahead before the end of the 6 week period if the local planning authority gives consent. This notice period gives the authority an opportunity to consider whether to make an Order on the tree. Paragraph: 116 Reference ID: 36-116-20140306 Revision date: 06 03 2014

Good morning Joe, Can I refer you back to the previous Head Office post which closed with: Our CEO John Parker always welcomes feedback and has said that if you would like to address your concerns to him in writing, please feel free to contact him on [email protected] Thank you, Paul

Good morning all, and thanks for your comments here (including the 'fowl' one Joe ...I was just knackered.) I'm in Head Office today so I will bring the matter up there but again, and I do understand why you would say otherwise, the fact the article was published does not mean we categorically endorse it's contents. We / I absolutely recognise the important role that the self-employed people play in the industry, often where the more specialists skills are held, e.g. technical rigging / crane work, and of course often with much associated experience, so please don't think otherwise. Will come back again later ("bated breath I bet.") Have a good day.. Paul

It wasn't a "try" Joe, I was just stating the facts, and I don't think we have endorsed it but we have published it and thereby given a platform for Paul to 'air his views.' Yes, personally, I do agree some of the terminology used isn't helpful, nor appropriate, but I think it has to be read in context because he does make some very valid points. I will let Paul know this thread is active. (It's a pity readers didn't write to the Arb Mag editor at the time and perhaps that would have been published in the following edition along with a reply from Paul.) Cheers (and I'm logging off now so will pick any further comments up tomorrow.)

Personal / professional development, and a new challenge, and he's been very successful and helped many businesses to develop and meet their fuller potential (as I see it.) To clarify we're talking about Paul Elcoat here, of Elcoat Ltd., who is an industry based H&S advisor and business management consultant, i.e. he's not a contractor. (Apologies in advance if I've got the wrong end of the stick here....put it down to post-Covid brain fog ) Cheers..

It's one person's view and an article which appeared in a previous issue of the Arb Mag. Paul's view (Mr Elcoat) is clearly that arborists would be better employed by businesses directly to relieve the shortage of trained, skilled and experience staff, i.e. in the context of the article, and allow for better work planning and service delivery. In practice many choose self-employment as their preferred option, and most quite successfully (I think), but we would hope if it doesn't work out for them they would consider re-employment rather than leave the industry which just adds further to the current staffing problem for businesses.

Which is 'as it should be' but many do still seek verbal, or written (email), clearance were they're perhaps not as sure of the Regs and rules as you are. Cheers..

PS decisions to appeal shouldn't be taken lightly AND it can take upto 12 months to determine so often a new application for 'lesser' works is made, i.e. prune rather than fell.

Usually, on receipt of a 'notification' (Sect. 211 notice) the LPA (Local Planning Authority - 'the Council") will issue an acknowledgement letter (email) stating a date 6 weeks hence when you can proceed if you've heard nothing more. In practice, most contractors still contact the Council at 6 weeks asking if it's okay to proceed...this is understandable, and may be maintains good relations with the TO (Tree Officer) but you're not obliged to do so. Sorry, going off the OP's message - "if" the Council have refused an application to fell the trees because they are TPO'd (subject to a Tree Preservation Order), within a Conservation Area, then you can 'appeal' the decision to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) see: Appeal a decision about a tree preservation order: When you can appeal - GOV.UK WWW.GOV.UK Appeal against a tree preservation or replacement order decision - deadlines, how to appeal and how long it takes to get a decision.

Plant a shrub at the base to screen the brown and keep it for a few more years.

I remember my first encounter with LP in my early days as an assessor when I wondered what the heck was going on as the chap feeding the chipper was wearing RPE (respirator) BUT I very soon understood why, and the climbers all used dust masks. Most generic risk assessments / method statements I see these days talk about minimising the risk at this time of year by only undertaking emergency works, or exceptional very high priority works (and during wet weather where possible, to dampen the dusts clouds.) Ideally, as others have said, programmed works can take place when dormant...not the best for the tree necessarily but LP is pretty hardy and the RA process puts people first.

Somebody once said that a tree surgeon is someone who knows 'where' to place cuts when pruning a tree, and an arborist is a tree surgeon who understands "why" - this is what the ISA Study Guide could give you. Personally, other than the Americanisms within a few sections (maybe 5-10% of the book) I think it presents a really good learning opportunity (to supplement NPTCs etc.), but accessing the exam is very challenging...still the study's worth doing anyway. Good luck, and enjoy.. Paul

Looking at the needles on the stem I'd have gone Fir (Abies)...appen

I'd have said T1 (first photo(s)) is Tree Cotoneaster maybe, and T2 Hawthorn

Both the Forestry industry sector, and IRATA (I think / presume) are structured differently to the arb industry are they not, in that arb has many more small/micro businesses, and a large self-employed fraternity, where it would be much more difficult to implement log books and sign offs ect. effectively (if you have a direct supervisor, and manager, as with larger businesses this is easier to achieve.) Previously, there was a proposal to introduce something like the Forestry proposed system called 'R2' (Register of Tree Work Operatives) but industry in general, other than some larger employers (who have implemented a version of it internally in some cases) didn't 'buy-in'...maybe a lack of awareness / information was the problem but it's currently shelved.

Not quite sure what to say here, I'm sorry you feel we let you, and the industry, down so badly but it really wasn't for the want of trying but the HSE W@H experts were adamant 2nd line was required (hence the IRATA reference / comparison) and we did manage to get a concession for use of a backup system as it was demonstrated that in some situations insisting on 2 ropes wasn't suitable. HSE are supposed to be monitoring accidents in the industry closer than previously and it will be interesting to see what the stats show (or don't show) going forward. Thanks for your post and I couldn't agree more with your last few sentences. Paul

AA Safety Guide 1 (SG1) Sect. 10 - Descent (see below), gives some insight but you need TG1 for the full picture Arboricultural Association - Technical Guide 1: Tree Climbing & Aerial Rescue WWW.TREES.ORG.UK A source of publications, guidance notes and leaflets for arboriculturists. Competitively priced available to members... Safety-Guide-1-Form.pdf

Before I join in I've not read the final paperwork but I was lead to believe that on first ascent and final decent both lines had to reach the floor, once in the canopy a 2nd short line would suffice. Did I miss something that got changed? I can't recall "when" all the changes that occurred did so but if you read the current TG1 (Dec. 2020) at various sections, including 6.6e / 10.1 / 14.5.3d, it makes reference to the 'primary system' being able to reach the ground, it doesn't mention the same of the 'backup system' at all (BUT it is a good idea of course, in general terms dependent upon the system used.) Cheers Paul

Nope, only one system needs to reach the ground...unless you include a second system that does so, preferentially, but it is not required as such.

The "backup system" in this situation would likely be your flip line (in addition to your climbing line.)

The question is whether the HSE will be open to review...and I think very unlikely tbh. The expectation(?) is that with new climbers coming through the system", learning on '2 ropes', i.e. "climbing with a backup system in place", that it will become the norm.

AFAG 401 has been superceded by TG1 / SG1 (the Safety Guide.) I don;t know numbers of TG1 sold but my feeling is yes, a big seller, certainly initially.

Employed, or engaged, i.e. sub-contractors (LOSC, although this usually only applies to the climber, not 'bona-fide' businesses, although this can / does happen within the Utility scheme and alongside employed teams.) We are aware of the claims of the 'all stars' crew but I'm convinced this is not the case in practice. Bartletts 12/13 depots are all subject to individual assessments for the ARB Approval (the SSIP 'H&S compliance' aspect is a Head Office based activity which covers the whole business...but the depots, individually, still need to show they understand the compliance systems and demo them in action, so to speak.)