AA Teccie (Paul)

Suckers profusely on removal in my experience and hence a real problem to resolve. Despite it's attributes it is considered invasive, generally, and often nick named the complete opposite to it's common name, i.e. Tree of Hell. Go careful with them too as the sap can be an irritant to many. TTFN.. Paul

:lol: Likewise, that's why I stopped. Signed..'FB' Paul

Hoping to see you there. See ARB Approved Contractor Preparation Workshop for further info. Cheers all Paul PS Don't forget this is a FREE event...with the BYO lunch option so no-one's disappointed

Likewise, cheers Greg...see you there Paul

Cheers Charlie (assuming it's Charile ) Thanks for coming along and contributing and I understand the assessment day went very well indeed. Congrats n well done..! Paul

Hi there, you would need to inquire directly to NT to get a definitive answer. However £5 million (suitable and appropriate) PL was the previous benchmark for Local Authorities but many now require £10 million. Hence, recommend going to the horses mouth Cheers.. Paul

Whilst I'm sure there's far more up-to-date stuff / guidance out there a quick Google lead to this which is quite informative Incorporating: pros and cons | This is Money Regarding health, safety and environmental compliance, and industry good / best practice, you could take a steer from the ARB Approved Contractor SCheme standards , see Become an ARB Approved Contractor Regards, n good luck...n take care out there, (good) experience is key Paul

Hoping to see you there: ARB Approved Contractor – Preparation Workshops (2015) DATE REGION VENUE Wed. 21-Jan-2015 North West Preston, Lancashire (Myerscough College) Wed. 11-Feb-2015 North East Ponteland, Northumberland (Kirkley Hall) Wed. 25-Mar-2015 North Wales Wrexham, North Wales (Venue TBC) Thurs. 30-Apr-2015 West Midlands Stoneleigh, Warwickshire (Lantra House) Wed. 20-May-2015 East Midlands Seagrave, Leicester (Parkhill Training) Wed. 10-Jun-2015 Home Counties Enfield, N. London (Capel Manor College) Fer now, please treat as 'heads up' as not yet able to book (see Training - Arboricultural Association in New Year for further info.) Thanks all.. Paul

Not me ("Got a CSCS card") but thankfully I don't need one to get in the office. Joking apart, this whole situation is something of a conundrum to me (even tho I'm a ROLO trainer these days..."should I give you my last one?") The situation is further exacerbated by the huge variation in construction companies, site managers, and their requirements...and understanding. However there does seem, generally, to be a shift in that they require to see CSCS/LISS (Landscape Industry Sector Scheme, of which we are part) and, often, NPTC cards...if they know/understand what they are. My 'learn-ED' colleague Simon Cox, is our guru here so I will ask him to post back on the situation. In the meantime, don't blow a gasket Cheers.. Paul

Hi there, a difficult situation you find yourself in. The 'formal' response is: ‘All workers who use a chainsaw should be competent to do so. Before using a chainsaw to carry out work on or in a tree, a worker should have received appropriate training and obtained a relevant certificate of competence or national competence award, unless they are undergoing such training and are adequately supervised. However, in the agricultural sector, this requirement only applies to first-time users of a chainsaw.’ This means everyone working with chainsaws on or in trees should hold such a certificate or award unless: - it is being done as part of an agricultural operation (eg hedging, clearing fallen branches, pruning trees to maintain clearance for machines); and - the work is being done by the occupier or their employees; and - they have used a chainsaw before 5 December 1998. In any case, operators using chainsaws for any task must be deemed competent under PUWER 98. As detailed in the HSE guidance below. I know this is "all, very well and good" and "easy for me to say" but I thought being aware of the formal situation might be useful in considering your options. Do look into the possibility of grants as chainsaw training generally is expensive. Good luck...n take care out there! Paul indg317.pdf

Yeah, okay, so I'm bound to say it but you could consider going ARB Approved. This would both give you an additional 'something' to approach people with, i.e. we've recently achieved a recognised industry approval status (which is also registered with SSiP of course ), and yeah you'll doubtless have to explain what's involved but it can pay dividends. Also, anecdotally, I've certainly noticed a shift in awareness of, and direction to, the scheme by Local Authorities and the like, e.g. National Trust / Environment Agency / Forestry Commission, albeit with some regional variation. Just a thought, not gonna "bang on"...HONIST , but give us a bell 01242 522152 / 07971 995351 ([email protected]) if you wanna know more. Cheers.. Paul Oh yeah, n you can access both the CHAS (commercial) and Trustmark (domestic) schemes once you're fully ARB Approved to..."win, win....win."

Various I guess from their pen, to a stick, to a clinometer to a laser metre...would have to be one of the latter two, i.e. most accurate, if they were considering taking action against you I would imagine.

Hi all, good discussion here. As a comparison, BS3998 (2010 of course ) indicates a 30% 'volume' crown reduction equate to a 12% linear / radial reduction. Hence, simplistically (MY middle name), if a tree has an average radial crown of 10m, a 30% volume would be approx. 1.2m or spec'd as 1.0-1.5m I would suggest to give the arborist a bit of lea-way for selecting the best pruning point. Interestingly, previous TPO application guidance issued with the advent of the 1APP also indicated LPAs would like to see finished dimensions cited, e.g. to crown reduce all round to finished dimensions of 16m high by 12m spread, or similar. This is a clear 'datum' point from which they can then measure to establish if works have exceeded the consent (not many insist on this tho...phew ) Thanks all.. Paul

Bob, if I've understood you correctly (typical AA Scheme Manage caveat ) the answer, simply, is 'no.' IF the LPA allows the removal of a tree under a 211 notice they cannot condition for replacement. The 'attempted' TPO in the scenario you cite would not be applicable and even if the do want a replacement they would need to condition the consent accordingly (which they can't of course if the tree isn't TPO'd.) There, SIMPLES Cheers, n hope yer well. Paul

Useful posts above, thank you. Just to clarify, if you are removing dead branches from live trees, or dead branches from dead trees but "don't go there" , you are not obliged / required to 'serve notice.' However, as also advised, and particularly if it's in a deemed sensitive area, a quick call, and ideally email, to the Planning Dept / Tree Officer would be helpful / courteous. Cheers.. Paul PS Also remember, particularly on Oak, there's lots of little beasties and wrigglies that need that aerial deadwood for habitat etc. so go easy

Why not keep it low key and personal, i.e. a hand-written (very nice) Christmas card...and maybe a nice box of 'locally sourced' mince pies hand delivered by your goodself. Just a thought.. Paul

That's very thorough "Mr KentJames", well done Quite reasonable too that you've adjusted the recorded "weekly inspection" timescale based on usage, said as this is a good practice issue rather than what the LOLER Regs/ACOP require. Many LOLER inspectors will supply 6 months worth of blank sheets, or an electronic master copy for such, based on their 'thorough examination' and the kit present. Failing that there are some templates here Help becoming an ARB Approved Contractor Cheers.. Paul

Do the professional and responsible thing and go back to the LPA concerned and voice your concerns directly. IF time permits consider making a new application, I would suggest. Cheers.. Paul

Hi Jules...and as you well know I'm no anorak...well, okay H&S wise maybe. I have heard this referenced before, albeit a long time ago, when one of the street works contractors got wise to it and used it as mitigation for root damage / severance within the RPA...when we saw it. Their argument was it's not within the critical rooting zone as far as tree stability is concerned and hence our grievance was overstated / exaggerated in terms of any damage within the RPA could destabilise the tree. Other than that very limited reference I cannot offer nothing more I'm afraid (every little helps I hope ) Regards, and have a good weekend. Paul