AA Teccie (Paul)

Hi Jules, There has been an 'indg401' (rather aptly referenced to coincide with AFAG401) around since at least May 2007, and there was possibly an earlier version (but I can't find a copy.) I think the 'First Edition' thing here relates to it in this new HSE web format. I am currently working up the flow-chart to be applicable to tree work operations so will post a copy when completed. Regards.. Paul

Yup, looks fairly conclusive to me as (woolly) beech scale. Not had lots of experience to be honest but can lead to nectria disease I believe. Cheers.. Paul

Hi David, apologies. Yes, there was 'interest', and the contract for production was awarded to Chris Cooper-Abbs (of ARB Matters) and is underway for a September completion. There has been a formal 'peer review' panel appointed also and the final draft document will come for industry consultation in due course when it will of course be posted here. Thanks for your 'interest' here David. Paul

Shame, summer time, avoiding drought periods, and phased if the client will go for it, i.e. 50% reduce in yr1 and then the rest in yr3 (hoping some lower stems will have developed.) My experience has shown weeping willow doesn't always regrow so advise the client of the risk of such. TTFN.. Paul

Just to say, if you are finding yourself moving more into the commercial arena and you're not sure about H&S management, risk assessments and method statements etc. we do a one day Risk Assessment for Commercial Arboriculture workshop which an active ARBTALK member described as "a workable solution." Have a look here as an example but we do run them throughout the year at various venues so check out the AA website Risk Assessment for Commercial Arboriculture Cheers fer now.. Paul

In my experience no one produces a Method Statement voluntarily, even though in some instances they can be very helpful. In a basic form a MS is a simple plan of work, "how, what, where, when"...simples. As Rupert quite rightly says, nothing is compulsory, inferring legally required, it down to the contractual / client requirements. Hope you find the website downloads helpful. Good luck Paul

Most is verbal acceptance, in my experience, and/or email confirmation, which is in effect 'written acceptance.' Alternatively some businesses have a 'tear off acceptance reply slip' at the bottom of the invoice or a duplicate form to sign. Regardless, remember under the 'Door-step Selling Regs', by which we are captured, customers have a minimum 7-day cooling off period if they sign 'on the day.' Cheers.. Paul

BUMP.. Hope ya's don't mind. Cheers.. Paul

Hi all, Please see ARB Approved Contractor Preparation Workshop for further details on this FREE event. Hoping to see some of you there Cheers all.. Paul

Hi all, I think Paulo (Baveresco) did quite a bit of work on this, or certainly the wider effects of tree work on the musculoskeletal frame, previously and had a couple of articles published. Trouble is I can't readily find them Cheers.. Paul

Did an assessment (in Scotland ) recently and came across this on site, seemed very good (except the name maybe ). Plant Nappy Official Website | Home Cheers.. Paul

Could try here Directory of Tree Surgeons - Arboricultural Association Good luck.. Paul

The 'ARB Show' Friday 6th - Saturday 7th June See The ARB Show - Arboricultural Association Cheers.. Paul

Sorry, rushing again. Chippers = probably weekly, as more complex machine and usually subject to 'harder' use (but again if it's low use it might be fortnightly.) Cheers.. Paul

HI 'new boy', Broadly what you refer to here is the PUWER (Provision and Use if Work Equipment Regs., 'the law relating to machinery', kinda) and LOLER (Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regs., 'the law relating specifically to lifting AND lowering equipment', kinda). PUWER is not prescriptive with regarding to maintenance and inspection frequencies, it's about doing what is 'reasonable' to maintain it in a safe condition and 'fit for use/purpose'. And, thereafter, being able to evidence such, i.e. keep a brief record/note of what you did when. So, it's very much dependent on use, i.e. for how long and for what, of the machine. I would 'suggest' (okay 'advise') chainsaws probably monthly, in terms of being in the workshop, stripped down, checked, reassembled and sharpened etc....and record (ideally.) LOLER is different as that is prescriptive with 3 levels of inspection: 1. Pre-use, by the climber (AKA 'end user'), not recorded = good practice 2. Weekly ('items subject to high wear and tear', i.e. ropes / lanyards / strops / krabs) by a 'competent person / end user' and recorded = good practice 3. 6 months (climbing kit) & 12 months (rigging kit) - 'thorough examination' (AKA 'loler inspection'), recorded (neatly), by 'LOLER inspector / competent person = LEGAL requirement. Hope this helps but see Help becoming an ARB Approved Contractor for more information and forms to record. Cheers.. Paul

Try How to book an NPTC assessment | Capel Manor College good luck paul

Sorry, late to the party...again. Regarding the initial post, I would suggest the resident(s) put pressure on the Local Authority / Highway Authority (as may not be one and the same) to act under the safety of the highway and 'users' issue, regardless of ownership. This assumes there is a road around the roundabout and it is adopted, i.e. Highway Authority maintainable. Also, I was previously advised by an LA solicitor that whilst the LA can put charges on land for certain things, such that it is reimbursed at some later date if the landowner changes, this does not include 'dangerous / obstructing trees' etc. (Just what I've been told, albeit by a 'legal eagle', so not sure it's an absolute.) Hope this helps...a little. Paul

Hopefully something to help if you look here (scroll down the page.) Help becoming an ARB Approved Contractor Cheers.. Paul

Chain BRAKE is correct, as in a device to stop motion (kinda), see page 7 of http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg317.pdf for confirmation. Cheers.. Paul PS Then go take a break..."have a ???":biggrin:

Thanks Ben See here for further details Claus Mattheck Seminars

Has it been 'refused', i.e. they've determined the application for works and said "NO", or have they declined to register it? You can only appeal if it's the former, i.e. "NO." If it's the latter, or in either case to be honest as a new application, they may be requiring to see further, more detailed, arboriculture evidence (see p.7 of attached) and if the trees have been previously 'topped' it might be worth flagging up the 'low amenity' value issue...although they're likely to respond it's collective as part of a woodland shelter belt. Hope this helps. Cheers.. Paul TPO-guidance_note-works_to_trees.pdf

Hi Ben, sorry I don't know. I'm in Head Office tomorrow so will find out and get back to you. Cheers.. Paul

Risdon Restorations - Tree Shearer on Vimeo Worth a watch for 2mins. Paul

Difficult to say just from photo's but perhaps 3m generally and 4-5m on that right hand stem. %...never was any good, maybe 30-40. Not saying the work is not compliant in terms of target pruning, it generally looks fine, but just excessive in parts. Cheers.. Paul

Hi 'R', not quite sure I've got your question right (apologies if not) but ideally, and to better accord with BS3998, not to exceed 100mm dia. (sect. 7.7.1 Note 1) and, ideally, 50mm dia. (Table 1) ...but acknowledging this is 'guidance and recommendations' and not a specification. My main point here was that the reduction to the right hand stem, as viewed, appears 'heavier' than the rest of the crown, which is quite heavy anyway. Hope this helps. Paul