AA Teccie (Paul)

Probable cause of initial decline / dieback was Verticillium Wilt. Maples are very prone to the disease. Good luck with getting it removed and be sure to plant a nice replacement...Small-leaf Lime Cheers, Paul

The 3-day First Aid at Work course is not obligatory. The requirement is to do a FA 'needs assessment' and train etc. accordingly. Hence, for the majority of operational staff the 1-day 'industry specific' (+F) course is suitable. Many FA providers offer this ow often labelled as EFAW for Tree Surgeons or similar, and usually include the '+F' suffix on the certificate. Paul

..because it's increasingly becoming the bench-mark for detailed tree inspections by the competent person and hence demonstrates such. Many job ads / contracts / insurers increasingly reference PTI as a requirement. It's a great CPD opportunity too. Cheers Paul

Hi Jon, I hope you're well and thank you for raising a relevant point. However, a tad disingenuous I feel in relation to the Arb Assn (still it amused Mr Johnson...Kevin, not Boris!) The AA website does attempt to differentiate between a Tree Surgeon and a Consultant, both with words and pictorially (albeit i do acknowledge improvements could still be made.) My personal view is that akin to requesting a building surveyor, or structural engineer, be engaged by insurers, with a little effort they could refer to a 'tree expert' at least rather than a tree surgeon (or maybe a tree surgeon competent to undertake subsidence risk assessments etc....which would hopefully get to the right people.) The AA 'Approved Contractor' is a business accreditation opportunity, which involves competent tree surgeons of course, and hence that is why it is referred to as such...behind the "Find the Right Tree Surgeon" pitch on the homepage. The bigger picture - maybe we could collectively write to the' ABI'(?) pointing out the error of their members ways. Thanks, Paul (Arboricultural Association)

Absolutely...however a competent person is implied, who may of course be a "qualified tree surgeon" tòo but I'd be very cautious about getting involved if you didn't consider yourself competent to do a detailed site investigation and tree related damage potential report...and have the appropriate insurance of course. Generally the domain of an arb consultant...and with relevant experience. (Tbh PTI isnt relevant here as not a tree risk/hazard assessment report.) ATB Paul

Good evening Kevin, not sure if you're being 'facetious' here or a genuine question 😊. If the latter, there no TO accreditation opportunity, we did offer a scheme many moons ago but it lapsed. The TO may well be a member of course, possibly/probably a qualified member if so, but tis for them to disclose such really. This situation assumes the TO is responsible which of course he/She may not be, it may be a planning dept legacy issue (haven't read the DN.) Regards, and hope you have a good Easter. Paul

An "Informative" on the DN - drawing the applicants attention to other relevant legislation/regulation etc. (same for wildlife / nesting birds etc.)

Hi there, IMHO / IME the problem will come when/if you buy the property and the insurers get involved, they'll probably want an 'arboricultural report', which will doubtless conclude that the tree is within influencing distance etc. etc., and probably recommend a structural engineer be engaged to investigate the cause of damage...often resulting in a recommendation for tree removal essentially as a process of elimination (of causation.) The underground stream issue you mentioned, I haven't looked at the planing application, is a cause for concern / possible causation and that should be fully investigated first before you have to consider removal of the tree, and incurring the associated cost of course, which may not be actual the cause. Not that it always happens consistently but there appears to be other similar sized trees to he front of adjacent properties...have they had any similar issues previously, or currently...may be worth asking. Bottom line = structural engineer FULL investigation (which may also be a condition of any mortgage offer if applicable.) Just my (personal) thoughts out loud. Good luck, tis a lovely house n lovely setting..."Emmerdale"? Paul

Try Hi-Line maybe Arboriculture, Forestry & Chainsaw - Training | Hi-Line WWW.HI-LINE.CO.UK Help and advise is a library of generic and arb specific guidance recourse available for all Hi-Line team members... or possibly Lynher Training (Cornwall) but don't know if they do UA training. Regards, Paul

OR register an interest with [email protected] as our demand is picking up now Cheers Paul (Arboricultural Association)

GlynnPercival (Bartlett labs) reckon even green mulch is beneficial if composted not available n Rosacea spp seem to promote best growth coz higher sugar content...interesting stuff. Cheers Paul

Hi all, just a comment bearing in mind "The CODIT Principle" book (ISA) which indicates pruning is generally best done Spring-Summer when the tree is active and wound response, and compartmentalisation (hope I've spelt that correctly) is at its best / most effective. Obviously this is one amongst many considerations, incl. birds nesting and customer preferences, but an important one as arborists advising customers. Re-"bleeding", sap loss akin to cutting through a hosepipe (water filled of course), is generally not thought to be particularly harmful to the tree but best to avoid early spring as can concern tree-owners. Regards, Paul PS All the above is caveated by..."if you really need to cut it"

A suggestion, as the primary beneficiary, if you are able, offer to fund the pruning, using the Council's preferred contractor, if they cannot justify expenditure. An inspection is a good idea and, at a basic level, can be undertaken by a competent Arborist/ tree surgeon...referring on to an experienced tree surveyor/inspector if required...hope fully the Council can/Will undertake this. Regards.. Paul

A phased approach to the crown reduction would be a good choice, i.e. Yr1 to previous (high) reduction points, ideally early summer time, and if that's not enough to meet your needs, reduce again 2-3 years later to 2-3m below those pruning points. This will hopefully give the tree time to adapt and develop new growth lower down to start to form a new crown. There are many who will say to "hit it in one go", which is an option, and obviously more cost effective, and the tree will respond with new growth, probably prolifically, but my suggestion follow the industry standard for tree pruning (BS3998) and best arboricultural practice - actually 'best practice' = do nothing "Food for thought"... Paul PS Is the tree actually the Council's or is it that they control what can be done by a TPO (Tree Preservation Order.) If so, TPO's, the tree is 'yours', or shared ownership maybe, and all costs and liabilities remain with you as the owner (apologies if this is irrelevant.)

...and the ICOP(2) states: "The anchor point of a personal fall protection system must be unquestionably reliable and be capable of withstanding any foreseeable loading throughout the task undertaken." Apparently the, very catchy , "unquestionably reliable" term is adopted from the IRATA ICOP and relies on the 'proficient' climber making a judgement call...back to the thickness of yer wrist Thanks all.. Paul

The CA size threshold is over 75mm dia. measured at 1.5m above ground level = 'stem diameter' (not 'DBH' which is a forestry mensuration term, measured at 1.3m) Not strictly coatia, and not common practice to my knowledge, but certainly I did it on several occasions as a former LPA TO, was to get "notifiers" to make a new notification I would not object to, provided they agreed too, and formally withdraw their original notification at the same time. Avoided additional work and burden for everyone. Not meaning to complicate the issue but just adding a different dimension which you may encounter...or even suggest where appropriate. Regards all, Paul

In order to validate a TPO application, or CA notification (Sect. 211 notice) the proposed work has to be suitably described / specified and BS3998:2010 is the usual point of reference for such. BS3998 states that ref. to percentages, without specifying either branch length to be removed, e.g. approx. 2.0m with final pruning cuts not exceeding 75mm, or crown reduce to finished dimensions of Xm high by Ym spread...and cuts not exceeding 75mm dia, as an example, is deemed to be imprecise and unsatisfactory Extract: NOTE 1 Specifications for a percentage reduction are imprecise and unsatisfactory without reference to length, height, spread etc. A 30% reduction in crown volume can be considered to be approximately equivalent to a 12% reduction in overall branch length (i.e. radial distance). So, unless your notification has been formally registered, i.e. you've got a 6 week expiry date, I'd propose reviewing your description / specification and re-submitting...and I'd suggest this anyway. Regards, Paul

PS ...and we send you some stickers for your pickup

The business is entered on the AA website 'Find a Tree Surgeon' and hopefully new business comes your way...but you need to self promote too. You can also access CHAS / SAFEcontractor etc. without further audit. You're also then subject to an annual audit, alternating between a desktop exercise , mainly checking H&S compliance, and a visit checking all aspects including on site. Not sure I've answered your question specifically so please ask again

Morning all, I have now have clarification from my colleague (who published the above in a previous ARB Mag.) This diagram(?) has been superseded by the ICOP2 & TG1,, requiring the use of a backup system essentially at all times, subsequent to a directive from HSE (whose preference was for "2 ropes" at all times of course.) Hence please use it (the diagram) very cautiously and where Point 3 is considered the absolute exception and, according to TG1, only when using a rope advance technique when you are static and secure standing on a branch doing the changeover (see p.32). Thanks all and my intention is not to open a debate here as HSE have decreed the above, and ICOP2 / TG1 are approved, and endorsed, and published. It was to clarify the current 'status' of the above diagram. Regards, Paul

Sure that question was raised and DEFRA rep said the LA, as the enforcement body, would take a dim view of 'partial / phased' deliveries less than 2m3 (BUT I'm not 100% by any means...neither were they absolutely definitive.)

Both I believe.

I attended a meeting last week and HETAS/Woodsure are looking at the feasibility of a Group Scheme which would cost individual group members circa £60 per year...TBC. Also, my understanding, if you deliver 2m3 or more you can simply issue an advice note to the customer...less and needs to be certified ("Ready to Burn" Scheme)

Chris asked me to reply on his behalf...ABSOLUTELY worth it 😉 So much so he's currently having a break. The "worth" differs from business to business n often associated with "the need (to be AC) which is often geographically influenced...also influenced by the drive n engagement of the business owner/ manager. It is my hope that at some future date, following on from a change in the building industry, all bona-fide tree surgery businesses will need to be licenced to operate...n at this moment in time ARB Approval is the best option.) ...sorry Chris 😁 Cheers Paul

Khriss, please "hang fire" til after Monday as I need to check that this was an interpretation / application before ICOP2 was finalised / published and hence may not be wholly in accord with "latest industry guidance." speak more Monday Paul