AA Teccie (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

Kevin, "respectfully", respectfully was not my sentence starter ....I knew I'd bl**dy regret posting a reply (I'll learn one day!) Enjoy your weekend...as much as possible in Covid'rama. ATB m keep safe.. Paul

The other issue here is that claiming HSE are trying to stop the industry climbing. I don't believe this is the case at all but they are trying to make tree climbing safer, perhaps in a too simplistic way...but perhaps not. With the development and increasing range of MEWPS / tree shears / grapple saws etc., and increasing pressure on justifying climbing, I can see "tree climbing" becoming more niche / specialists in the next 10 years, but not stopped.

Kevin, respectfully, and it's academic anyway as the decision is made (and was effectively required in 2005 when the Regs came in) but can you really evidence your last statement? Not that I'm asking you to, and indeed I wished I didn't keep getting drawn in, but just strikes me as a very damning statement, which many will jump on the bandwagon of, that really isn't evidenced based other than anecdotally. REMEMBER in my reply here I'm not envisaging '2 ropes' but rather a primary system with a suitable backup, which may of course be 2 ropes but may be other systems that change given particular circumstances (sorry, very wordy and can't think of a good example.) Regards, Paul

A TPO once made must be served on the tree owner / land owner, one would expect an agent too, e.g. arb consultant / tree surgeon. Hence "double-check" with the tree owner and if no TPO email the TO, ideally, giving them the start date for the works (out of professional courtesy.) A technicality, but important, it's "notification" with a Conservation Area, i.e. giving the Local Planning Authority (LPA) 6 weeks to serve a TPO to stop the works, and an "application" with a TPO, giving 8 weeks to determine or a deemed refusal. Also, in England, the 2012 TPO Regs apply equally and consistently regardless of where / which LPA. Cheers.. Paul

Hi all, just to clarify "2 ropes", whilst an option and a very good one in many instances, but maybe not all, is not the requirement of the updated industry guidance...a "backup system" to protect the primary system should it fail for any (unexpected) reason is. This may be 2 long ropes, both capable of reaching the ground (always a good option) BUT it can be 1x long rope and 1x short rope, or long lanyard, and/or short lanyard, a flip-line on vertical sections, or maybe some form of passive following rope being belayed (a proposal, which I don't understand the detail of.) Basically any system to stop you falling should the main climbing rope / anchor fail. Please have an open mind and doubtless technologies, equipment and techniques will change going forward...and many more businesses will invest in MEWPs and grapple-saws etc (NOT that HSE intend preventing climbing, it just needs to be clearly justified and follow 'current' industry good practice, i.e. ICOP(2) (managers) and TG1 (all.)) Thanks for reading.. Paul

The other thing to add here is that CHAS is about 'compliance' (H&S) whereas ARB Approved is about business improvement, with compliance...and support through the process and thereafter.

Terrible analogy but kinda like Vauxhall Corsa (CHAS) v Vauxhall Zafira (ARB Approved. ) The Corsa gets you from A to B but the Zafira offers much more versatility and options...and gets you from A to B too. Both schemes are registered safety schemes with SSIP, as are many others including SAFEcontractor and SMAS, but whilst they cover only H&S compliance (for SSIP) we cover that and lots more so more beneficial to the Arboricultural/tree surgery business. Once ARB Approved you can access the other schemes without further audit. We care planning some virtual workshops / open forums (online) in near future so "watch this space." Any questions please ask...or call me tomorrow 07971995351. Paul

True, kinda, we were lined up to facilitate an 'Arb Village' on there last Sept...hopefully still the same for this one. Highly unlikely the ARB Show at Westonbirt will go ahead, I think something virtual is lined up again...."watch this space" Cheers, Paul