AA Teccie (Paul)

Have you tried "Tree Surgery - A Complete Guide" (PH Bridgeman, 1977)...about the only one I can still relate to! Now where did I put those pension plan details . I also like the Shigo photo guide book. Cheers.. Paul

:thumbup1: OR refer the matter to a 'suitably competent person'...what's your address Jules? Good stuff, thank you. Paul

When we used to receive enquiries of this nature from tree owners we also used to make reference to 'possible' compensation claim for loss of amenity / enjoyment of the property and garden but the article makes no reference to that...perhaps it's "pie-in-the-sky." Cheers.. Paul

Indeed, Jon thank you for your intervention and information here. It would have had to wait til Monday for me to find out and reply. Best.. Paul

Excellent stuff, thank you all. Paul

:lol:

Not wishing to steal anybody's thunder, so to speak, but if you're not getting offers to quote to compare you could try here Directory of Tree Surgeons - Arboricultural Association Regards.. Paul

Very useful clarifications, thank you. Paul

I so wish we were talking, for instance, the PUWER Regs here as by comparison they are simple and easy to understand/apply....however. Firstly, THANK YOU "Just Me" for your very informed and very useful contributions here, much appreciated. Secondly: 1 above - I thought there was either a recent incident, reported here on ARBTALK, or maybe even a recent legal case where it was established its the weight of the trailer at the time of the 'offence' that matters and not its potential carrying weight. 2 above - many contractors interpret the 'Agriculture / Horticulture / Forestry etc. exemption to be applicable here. Never really sure about this but if it does apply perhaps its time review your role from tree surgery business to 'urban forestry' business. Just a couple of doubtless useless contributions. Cheers all n thanks again 'Just Me' Paul

Looks interesting BBC - Oak Tree: Nature's Greatest Survivor - Media Centre Cheers, n "happy viewing" Paul

How bizarre, seems too extreme to be bottle-but, I would suggest, perhaps worth investigating the 'nurse-tree' principle, i.e. where a mature tree has fallen/collapsed and then a (previously) lateral branch has grown up as a tree. Hmmmm :001_rolleyes: Reet, back to those H&S regs...aaaaaaaaahhhhhh:001_rolleyes: Cheers.. Paul

As mentioned above 'fitment' (great word) is all important. The FC previously issued an information note, or similar, about ear defender stowing when not in use warning against inadvertently resting on the 'guttering' of forestry helmets causing the hygiene unit to deform. Hence it doesn't then seal and protect the ear. The below FC note is also generally interesting around the subject. Cheers.. Paul FCTN7.pdf

Edward, forgive me, I'm afraid the penny's not dropping here in terms of recognising / identifying you as a previous AAAC Thank you for your approach here and, as you quite rightly point out, the website gives the opportunity to refer people without making a specific contractor recommendation. AAAC nos. are increasing, fast approaching 300 now, but some areas are still quite sparse so lots of opportunities readers Thanks for your reply here. Cheers.. Paul

Increasingly, anecdotally, Councils / LPAs are linking to the 'Find a Tree Surgeon' section of the Arb Assoc website to assist here...and probably to avoid fielding that difficult question about "can you recommend anybody?" Having been in that position previously, as a LPA TO (sorry, Local Planning Authority based Tree Officer) we did have an (informal / historic) approved list with half a dozen or so contractor details but were latterly told to withdraw it to protect the Councils interest / integrity. So, 'pm' me for your 'ArbAC' assessment application forms Cheers.. Paul

I'm aware of several contractors who charge a nominal fee (£25-£40) and then refund it, effectively, by deducting it from the final invoice. But the majority seem not to charge particularly for regular clients. Cheers, Paul

Hi Chris, not a problem to disagree based on your experience which differs to mine...neither of which were 'our' decisions. As with, for instance, Misc. Provisions Act, LA's do have both discretionary options AND their own 'legal depts.' interpretations which can result in differing, n dare I say inconsistent, approaches. I think the Poole case is maybe different in that is was recovery of a fine rather than the Council's time n resources...perhaps. Anyhow's as this fantastic forum, and fantastic forum contributors , allows us all so to do we share our experiences n knowledge n allows others to 'take or leave' it...thank you. Cheers.. Paul

I was previously advised by the Council's solicitor, in a previous LA TO life, that you cannot levy a land-charge for this particular purpose.

Hi Gary, "my thoughts" The HA cannot serve a 'Sect. 154' notice saying to remove a tree only to remove a danger (or an obstruction / encroachment)...which of course may be one and the same. The liability remains with the land owner, I believe. In terms of liability for damage after the notice has expired and not complied with = the landowner, but the HA could be implicated. I have to clarify here that this is 'my' view and not a statement of law/fact given the potential implications of the case. Cheers.. Paul

Hi all, Just a 'heads up' for this FREE event at Hadlow College on Weds. 14th October (2015.) For further info and booking please see ARB Approved Contractor Preparation Workshop Cheers.. Paul

Hmmmm, an interesting one...and a conundrum I would suggest, so probably stop reading now , that provided the 'new' TPO doesn't include the trees in question, and obviously they may have already been removed, then the replacement planting condition would not be enforceable by a 'TRN' (tree replacement notice.) In response to your Q2. I'm really note sure what the current protocol is, i.e. whether a new or amended TPO is the way to go although I suspect the former as the TPO covering groups and individuals etc. is fundamentally different. (I do bow to others greater knowledge here tho.) Hoping this posts prompts a better response...Paul, Gary??? Cheers.. Paul

Are you talking about 'size categories' in a development type context, whereby BS5837 may be relevant (not BS3998), or a general 'tree survey' (safety survey) type context? Either-way, in general terms, and as both Gary and Paul have said (I'm good at following others better knowledge ) there is no 'recognised' size categorisation...as far as I am aware. Categorisation does happen in BS5837 in relation to 'quality', I guess, and suitability for retention of trees on development sites (again as others have said) usually to make a longer term contribution. Otherwise you can develop your own 'categorisation' but be sure to explain it in the notes / 'survey key' and be consistent. Cheers.. Paul

CPD, CPD, CPD...thank you gents. (CPD = 'continuing professional development', informal granted, but valuable nevertheless )

Yup, reckon that's it, i.e. what used to by NPTC CS50, originally developed for, for instance, LA guys doing 'call-outs' so not anticipated bigger, more complex, trees requiring CS32 skills would be assigned. Cheers.. Paul

...and just be careful not to fell anything onto the MEWP! (CS47 was the chainsaw form MEWP ticket so guess you mean CS34, single windblow, and/or CS35 multiple.) Did the course, albeit "donkey's years ago", very useful and new techniques learned...REMEMBER it would/should also be deemed a 'refresher' for your chainsaw use and standard felling skills too so "win, win!" Enjoy.. Paul

Hi Ti, hope you're well. Firstly, if I may, a point of clarification here in that it was probably an 'Area' TPO rather than a Conservation Area designated as that involves quite a long process and is primarily done to protect / maintain buildings and architectural features not trees, they are incidental and contribute to the overall setting and landscape. Secondly, and in the strictest sense, once the trees are deemed "under threat", and thereby it is considered 'expedient' to make the TPO (assuming the trees have significant public amenity value of course) the TO is just doing his/her job. Nonetheless when you've gone through the official channels to start with and established there are no protections / restriction in place it is very difficult to accept that. The LPA should now survey the site quickly, and ideally prior to confirmation (6 months?) designating trees as individuals, groups and/or woodlands and this often results in some trees not being included in the amended TPO schedule. Anyhow's just my ten-penneth Have great BH weekend...'et al' Paul