AA Teccie (Paul)

Hi Peter, We are largely working with 'principles', taken directly from H&S legislation, and probably "facts n figures" from other industry sectors and not arb (because we don't have these available.) However, as I mentioned previously, and albeit anecdotally, I heard of several instances last year were climbers fell from trees and only one involving a MEWP...but proportionally they may be similar figures OR in favour of tree climbing. Its all somewhat speculative. However, as I said before, there is no intention to deter tree climbing at all but to encourage better decision making in terms of the planning and organisation of tree-work at height...as per the ICOP, W@H Regs and Management Regs. The fact remains that, in the event of an accident or incident, questions will be asked IF a MEWP could access the site and there was adequate space available (potentially your insurance company may also have an interest here if you're not complying with documented industry guidance.) Whilst this is doubtless a very debatable, and even controversial issue, the required action is simply to consider GROUND - MEWP - CLIMB - REVIEW, and in that order, and ideally record / "justify" as you move from the first to the next, to the next, i.e. WHY are you climbing (and not simply because that's what you are highly trained to do and specialise in.) Sorry, feel I'm just repeating myself here. Paul

The ICOP is not a document to deter or prevent tree work from rope and harness at all, it is simply a framework to ensure a consistent approach to the planning and organisation aspect that is derived from the W@H Regs. Additionally, within the Management Regs, it sets out a hierarchy for risk prevention and 'collective protective measures' (meaning passive controls - MEWP bucket) always takes priority over 'personal protective measures' (meaning active controls - rope and harness.) REMEMBER also this is purely considering the risks associated with "falls from height" which, as many have pointed out, is just one of a range of hazards that may be present...albeit a significant one AND one that has its own, specific H&S Regs (W@H Regs.) Know its a negative view, and highly unlikely to occur (I sincerely hope), but a HSE Inspector will always ask the question about why a MEWP wasn't used and in particular IF access / space was favourable. In order to get the document accepted by HSE, and to comply with legislation, it has to be set out the way it is, i.e. the risk hierarchy of GROUND - MEWP - CLIMB - REVIEW, and hence so long as your risk assessment process takes account of this, and, ideally, your justification is documented, you can happily climb away. Perhaps its something of a mind-set change it terms of trying not to automatically default to HOW will I climb the tree but to DO I NEED TO climb the tree and, if so, why...and then HOW. I'm waffling, time to go. Cheers.. Paul

Not ideal, but as a temporary / occasional measure you could also use 'ear-plugs' inside the ear defenders but having the correct ear-defenders for the task /machine / noise output is important. With the exception of the reference to 'ear-muffs', an ear-warming fashion item IMHO, rather than ear-defenders, an industrial ear-protection system, this article is quite interesting Ear Plugs vs Ear Muffs - How to Choose Your Ear Protection | | Seton UK Make sure you choose the correct protection as (noise-induced) hearing loss is a progressive and accumulative industrial disease and damage is usually irreparable. Cheers Paul

But what that it is now no longer "grewing" on said/same land...does the law still hold the same? Where's that Mr Mynors chap when you need him Cheers.. Paul

I hope you looked your best here when he, or she, was perusing you (sorry, couldn't resist! ) We don't make mention of any specification qualifications / certifications etc in part because they often change. However, the CS39 v CS47 issue has been clarified previously by the HSE in response to an enquiry I made (trouble is I can't find the email ) Basically if you have CS39 you don't generally need CS47, as was, to operate the chainsaw from a bucket...UNLESS a particular commercial client insists on it and, frustratingly, it may be the better option just to do the assessment anyway.

Tom, thank you, for both raising the issue (forgive the pun ) AND considering MEWPs...which is what the ICOP requires you to do. When I worked for the local authority, albeit many years ago, they had an 18m street-lighting wagon which was used many times for dismantling big dead elms, and some privately owned ones that were very dead and "self-dismantling" ) that endangered the highway. This was a ideal application for MEWP use. Paul PS I did climb too, frequently and often in combination, plus the other time it felt good (being in the MEWP bucket) was during very heavy rainfall to ensure I had good footing when using the saw.

Hmmm...I wouldn't agree here. MEWPs are often justified, or rather would be if either the company owned one or the value of a contract AND their availability locally was favourable. I know we climb dead/dying/dangerous trees, adjusting our techniques accordingly, or at least that's what we tell ourselves, but how often have you been in that situation and something's happened that made you go SH*T, that was a bit too close for comfort...or maybe it was just me. PLEASE consider ALL the differing factors to determine whether a MEWP really might be the best option...at least in so doing and then deciding otherwise, ie to climb, you'll be according with the regs / ICOP. Cheers, n tc out there.. Paul

"Possession is 9/10ths of the law" - record (write down when/where/how etc.) the conversation took place, take lots of photographs and carry on I would suggest. Cheers, Paul PS This is just my opinion, not a statement of law.

Hmmm, HSE love "hindsight" in prosecutions so perhaps be prepared for the question "why did you not use a MEWP on this job when the tree was quite obviously dangerous?" Food for thought n "pragmatism" is my middle name Take acre out there n thanks fer the chat Paul

Maybe, maybe not, kinda academic anyway as compliance is compliance regardless of who a contractor is approved by...or not as the case maybe. That said many Councils still have their own 'informal' approved list but often its a presumption by the contractor who works for the council that they are therefore council approved...sounds good for marketing. Cheers.. Paul

MEWPs do fall, indeed one failed in Leeds / Bradford area last year (I think) and the operator was badly injured. What's interesting though, and there are no "hard facts and figures" that I'm aware of, I can think of several situations last year where climbers fell from trees for various reasons. So, anecdotally, and acknowledging the vast majority of aerial tree work is still done from rope n harness thereby perhaps making a proportionally similar, MEWPs can benefit safety...under some circumstances and in certain situations (see Chapter 9 of the previous HSE research report below.) The ARB Approved Contractor, and indeed ALL compliant contractors, should be aware of the industry ICOP (see below also) AND be able to justify whatever method of accessing the tree they have selected based on sound reasons. This can include cost, or rather dis-proportionate cost, which in H&S terms is the "reasonably practicable" argument, i.e. cost 'v' benefit, hence the cost of the job would be significantly increased for very little safety gain (the exception here in many / most instances being the dismantling of dangerous trees.) Skiing holiday sounds great...how do you risk assess that? BTW without exception, every contractor I've ever spoken to who owns a MEWP would never get rid and always wants a bigger and better one because they are a very useful tool to have available and certain jobs get done much quicker and efficiently. Cheers, n thanks for the questions.. Paul rr123.pdf ICoP_TreeWorkAtHeight-090215.pdf

Were they ARB Approved? Regardless its H&S directive, in terms of "collective measures" take priority (MEWPs in our industry case) AND the industry ICOP which sets out a hierarchy to follow when planning work at height = AVOID, e.g. feel from ground level (where possible / feasible), PREVENT (the chances of a fall by using collective measures / MEWPs) and the MINMISE (use rope and harness.) ALL contractors, ARB Approved and not, will interpret this and apply it with subjectivity. Cheers.. Paul

Looks good to me, I guess the hope, at least in part, is to generate a new crown lower down as the tree is a bit "Jerry Hall"...leggy. Cheers..

Worth a look here too https://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profile?pid=599#section-2

Hi there, not a direct answer to your question, and I'm sure someone will be along shortly to offer more, and maybe much more (a copy of a CoE) but the government website has some very useful information which may helkp to draw up your own https://www.gov.uk/employment-contracts-and-conditions/written-statement-of-employment-particulars

Acknowledged, "fair comment." You right things quite clearly I think, it's my reading that let's it down Cheers Gary, Paul

Hi Gary, Why would they need a 'policy' per se for making and serving TPOs when there's such extensive guidance available which is backed up by the regulations...or do you mean a policy in the sense of their normal practices? No need to reply particularly as this is just a thought out loud really. Cheers.. Paul

Hi Gary, I would have thought so, seems reasonable / makes sense. Seems to ring a bell this issue, perhaps worth an archive search. Cheers...n hope you're well Paul

Okay, so you'll probably need to invest ("speculate to accumulate" maybe ), time, resources and money in the first instance but thereafter being 'ARB Approved' costs, on average, from about £600 per year +VAT (including Trustmark which is a government endorsed scheme seeking to offer a similar marketing opportunity to 'RP' and Check-a-Trade and Trusted Trader with web-based feedback.) It would / should / could also better position your business to access commercial contracts, or at least "open doors." Just a thought. For more info look here Arboricultural Association - Become an ARB Approved Contractor and for FREE workshop events look here Arboricultural Association - Course Detail and here Arboricultural Association - Course Detail with others to follow. Cheers Paul

Exactly. The fungi Id and significance / colonisations strategy etc. is "open book" and some of this will be covered beforehand. Usually there's 3 fungi which are pretty "run-of-the-mill" n the 4th to stretch / challenge you a little.

The forum at its best here with useful and interesting stuff. Thanks guys Paul

Be thorough in your inspection of the trees but recording only that deemed to be important, either based on visual prominence, eg large superficial bark-wound, or significance, eg decay fungi present AND ensure this is then followed up by appropriate recommendations and timescales (this is often the subjective bit so back it up with your thinking / logic succinctly I would suggest.) You may wish to show a systematic approach here listing out i) crown area, ii) branch structure, iii) stem, iv) bole / root-plate etc. Also don't dwell on any one area of the assessment too long, think you have 2 hrs so plan it effectively. Lastly, one you're in possession of the course work-book, make that your study guide each night. Lastly...RELAX n enjoy. Good luck Paul

Hmmmm....obviously as the employer you have a duty to provide such H&S training as may be required to carry out the tasks. Other training, e.g. RFS Cert Arb / Level 2 arb, can be reasonably negotiated. I know some contractors put a loyalty clause, in effect, in the employment contracts such that if the employee leaves the business soon after CS etc. training they will seek to claw-back, proportionally dependent upon exactly how soon, the cost of the course. what's the possibility of getting a free-lance instructor / trainer to come to you maybe as an alternative.

Right, "form an orderly queue" to book on this "not to be missed" informative day SO, the next FREE workshop is at Lantra House, Stoneleigh Park on Wednesday 27th April. To book please go to Arboricultural Association - Course Detail remembering doing so will both generate a nice certificate of attendance for you, ensure we have enough tea n coffee...AND entitle you to 25% discount on the initial assessment fee (provided you apply within 3 months.) Hoping to see you there Cheers.. Paul PS I'll bring the biccies