AA Teccie (Paul)

Essentially Conservation Area Notification (AKA 'Sect.211 notice') - 6 week expiry = deemed CONSENT (in effect) = proceed (but 'best practice' recommends you 'inform' the LPA prior to proceeding if you've had no formal response / confirmation.) Tree Preservation Order Application (AKA 'TPO app') - 8 weeks / 2 months expired = deemed REFUSAL = DO NOT proceed ('chase' LPA but you can appeal for none determination within the prescribed time if you wish...uncommon and usually be prepared to wait another couple of weeks(ish) BUT not indefinitely!) Hope this helps. Paul PS If you are applying to remove the tree because of alleged safety issues / concerns you must now also provide a tree report evidencing / substantiating such.)

Hi Paulo, In principle, because of the 'in-situ' guard-rails requiring no intervention or action from the operator, it is deemed that MEWPs do protect for falls from height for anyone and everyone who step into them (hence the 'collective protective measures' phrase.) "Yes," in practice, MEWPs fail and people get harmed, sadly, but in terms of the 'access hierarchy' which must be applied when planning and organising work at height (because regulation / 'law' says so.) Whilst I don't have any figures to hand, and I doubt HSE could supply any, it would be interesting to compare how many actual 'falls from height' occur from MEWPs in treework as opposed to WP...my guess would be fewer. However, I accept that 'proportionally', i.e. considering the nos. trees climbed as opposed to MEWP'd, it is probably not so clear. Please don't misunderstand me, I fully understand as a climber myself, albeit a long time ago, why arborists feel safer with WP BUT as I am now, principally, a H&S manager my role is to ensure people working in our industry understand the implications of regulations and meet their duties as employers. Interestingly, whilst I am aware of several accidents / incidents involving significant injuries, and sometimes fatalities, I cannot recall one which resulted from the operator actually falling out of the MEWP bucket, it is usually to do with other factors resulting in the MEWP failing / toppling / crushes etc. (academic to some extent as the outcome is the important bit but it does highlight the point...perhaps.) Sorry, I'm droning on , fundamentally we need to understand the implications of W@H BUT follow a robust risk assessment process and that will dictate the most appropriate, and yes 'cost effective', safe system of work. Thanks for your input. Best.. Paul

Paulo, whilst I wholly agree with your latter statement highlighting the importance of risk assessment to determine a safe system of work, and hence often the MEWP poses a higher level of risk and isn't employed, nonetheless in terms of compliance with the W@H hierarchy MEWPs should be considered ahead of WP (and indeed avoidance of W@H as the very first step.) You quite rightly state the reason being 'collective protective measures' but this doesn't relate to accommodating numerous people working at height at the same time, it highlights the fact that whomever steps into the bucket is automatically protected from a fall from height without having to do anything because of the 'in-situ' guard-rails. Unlike when tree climbing where we employ individual protective measures, which present a deemed higher level of risk. We may, and in fact often do, challenge this concept as we are 'tree climbers', not tree 'MEWPers', but the fact remain when planning and organising work at height if you are climbing you should be able to explain your justification. My experience is people often access by WP by default and justify purely based on cost saving...not always a convincing justification. Hopefully the forthcoming 'Industry Code of Practice' (ICOP) document for working at height in arboriculture will serve to address this far better than I have. Re-the Severn Bridge incident I cannot comment as I'm not aware of it but it is clearly a tragic one, sadly. Regards.. Paul

Your employer is being responsible and complying with the 'Work at Height Regs.', as he's obliged to do. In practice the two access techniques are often used in tandem...will you ride one? Cheers.. Paul

...and don't forget about FC Felling Licences which, in my experience, more contractors fall foul of! Cheers.. Paul

Other than as part of a wider course of study, i.e. FdSc or ABC Level 4 & 6, the only specific course I know of is with Treelife (see BS5837 Course ) We are looking to develop something but it won't be available in the 'near' future. Cheers.. Paul

Hi there, Tis 3 days in total, Day 1 is usually an arb knowledge 'revision' day (level 3/4, i.e. ND Arb / AA Tech Cert / ISA Cert Arb?), Day 2 and morning of Day 3 is tree inspection and recording and pm of Day 3 is assessment time (3 parts, i) 20 short questions, ii) 4 fungi to id and signif. etc, and iii) 2x trees to undertake detailed inspection and record findings (as field notes)). I'm in Head Office all day tomorrow should you wish to discuss (tel. 01242 522152.) Cheers.. Paul

Hi there, you did indeedy, thank you. The next in the 'South Central' region, and probably at Sparsholt, is in late Sept. 2014. Hence if you wanted one sooner, and were prepared to travel to say Merrist Wood / Guildford, then it's worth registering an interest. If not, I'll post about the S. Central one nearer the time next year. Cheers.. Paul

Hi all, Whilst commonly referred to as such (“Chapter 8”, which is the associated Traffic Signs Manual), the updated ‘Code of Practice’ is actually issued under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (‘NRSWA 91’), a point of clarification. The ‘New Red Book’, replacing the ‘old’ maroon book, comes into play 1-Oct-2014 but that fact it is now published encourages improved compliance. Thankfully there is a ‘summary of changes’ notice which has been issued, at which I have had a (very) quick glance and it appears, amongst other things, to place a greater emphasis on planning, informing and managing pedestrians…and cyclist…and horse-riders at work sites, a challenging enough issue to start with. Anyway, “happy reading”, and don’t forget you have until October 2014 to fully comply but why not get ahead of the game now..! Cheers.. Paul Summary of Changes to the New Red Book.pdf New Red book 2014.pdf

You do a workshop (in Guildford) one week, and the following week have a glut of enquiries seeking another in the SE Region...and we're not due back there until Autumn (2014.) Hence if anyone is interested, and remember these events are FoC , albeit lunch is 'BYO' ...but we do provide tea, coffee n biccies , then please let us know and we'll see if we can run one in Spring time maybe. Thanks all n hope yer well. Cheers.. Paul

Hi everyone, Just a 'heads up' at this stage, and hopefully a date for your 2014 diary (venue, and possible date if we can't secure a venue on that date, 'TBC' and of course subject to minimum nos.) This event will be FoC...but lunch is 'BYO.' Where would we be without 'TLAs?' (any guesses?) Cheers all.. Paul

Excellent thread, and piccies, as always! Thanks all.. Paul

Hi David, Similar to your Oak shot above, I think, I have seen pronounced growth striations on the underside of heavily loaded branches on broadleaves indicating reactive growth (?) which I didn't understand. Regarding the general premises of 'push' n 'pull', conifers n broadleaves respectively, in terms of remembering it someone, poss. on the forum, said broadleaves have biceps, i.e. tension pull like a bicep (not mine tho ), n conifers have triceps, i.e. compression pull like a tricep (not mine either ) Anyway enough waffle from me, clearly I need to go back to 'arb' school. Thanks as ever for your informative posts, racks up my CPD every time Cheers.. Paul

That'd be my guess too. (It's always easier going second ) Well done Sloth Paul

RIDDOR is now 7 days off work, inc. weekends, so just an accident book entry is required, nothing more. REMEMBER if the accident book shows a 'trend', i.e. lots of sawdust in eyes entries AND in partic. if hospital trips, you should amend your associated risk assessment. In this instance it might result in wearing of safety glasses as many companies already require. Cheers.. Paul PS If in doubt call HSE/RIDDOR, they too will be only too pleased to say "not reportable!"

i.e. "two weeks yesterday"...YEEKS, Sorry for the short notice here. Any one interested please email my colleague [email protected] Thanks all.. Paul

VERY LAST CALL... We've got 15 people booked on ...but still a few spaces left. Hope to see you there. Paul

"...and under the tape on the other side." Is tape the most appropriate method, is it adequate? Doesn't sound like it. Perhaps you need to review your risk assessment and improve / upgrade the barrier method, i.e. proper highway barriers as the utilities use. OR assign an additional 'banksman' to the task. OR...go work in the park, much nicer:biggrin: Cheers.. Paul PS Sorry, I do acknowledge that you cannot account for stupidity but in this day and age you have to being doing as much as you reasonably can and perhaps tape doesn't meet that standard.

The only other 'possibles', which may affect the hedge directly (as opposed to, for instance, nesting birds,) I can think of are: 1. Planning Conditions (Local Planning Authority issue) 2. Restrictive Covenant (Usually the original land owner altho often transferred to a legal practice) Either way I'd put the onus, if you are going to enquire, on the hedge owner. Cheers.. Paul PS You'd best get it right as m, vague, recollection is that the 'Village People' included a Policeman.

Did think about 'Pin Oak' (Q. palustris), HONEST , but thought the leaf was too broad, partic the one in the office. Still, as the saying goes, "use it, or lose it", n I get increasingly less chance to use it these days...my tree ID skills that is! Sorry, Friday 'frivolity' as I'm still stuck in the office and a 3 hour drive home awaits...oh joy! Have a good weekend all..! Paul

Hi Poda, it's certainly Quercus, initially I would have said Q. rubra but the leaf looks quite broad. Still, that's my best guess...doubtless other, better ones, will follow. Adios.. Paul

I would interpret a 'Highways Tree' as being a tree in highways ownership, although sometimes difficult to determine with hedgerows for instance but clearly street trees are highways trees. However, if you are referring to the Highways Authority enforcing the 1980 Highways Act (using s.154) it includes private trees within falling distance of the highway where a danger or obstruction might be caused. this is not a definitive answer, I'm not sure the is such a thing, but it is my best interpretation. Hoping it helps. Cheers.. Paul

That's about it "in a nutshell", well certainly is you plan to stay for more than 12 months. Thereafter HSE, the UK Health and Safety Executive (the 'regulator') will expect you to transfer to the UK system which everyone refers to as NPTCs (National Proficiency Test Council, part of the City & Guilds (C&G) national awarding body.) NPTCs, whilst still viable, are, in effect, no longer available as the system has changed to 'licence to practice' which are generally available from both C&G (see below) and Lantra (see Lantra Awards | Training Courses | Chainsaw | Aerial | Qualifications ) Regards, n good luck. Paul City&Guilds-chainsaw-quals.pdf

Whether the 'aerial rescue' arrangements were deemed adequate will depend on a number of factors...and in all honesty only really stand up when/if tested. The size of the tree, the complexity of the job, the area of the crown you were in, the task you were doing (transferring, re-positioning, setting up, cutting with handsaw, cutting with a chainsaw), the distance between the tree n chipper, the route (open / closed), the duration etc. etc. This should all be considered as part of the risk assessment / work at height / emergency contingencies process but in practice its dynamic. Bottom line if you were using the chainsaw in the tree I would expect the 2nd guy, who is presumably also the nominated 'aerial rescuer', to be present, observing and ready to go. The economics otherwise don't usually allow for them to be present all the time but they need to choose their moments. All that said IF you company policy and procedures dictate the rescuer must be there all the time then 'so be it.' Refer to AFAG 401/402 and AA Guide to Good Climbing Practice (Chapter 10) for further info...but it generalises principals and isn't prescriptive to every situation, that's your (combined) job as the competent climbers. Cheers.. Paul

I understood that air-spading (very carefully) can have a degree of control of HF as it breaks up the rhizomorphs (boot-laces) in the soil. As others have said tho HF is much maligned and often just does what it designed to...altho it can wreak havoc in an over-manicured garden if it gets hold. Cheers.. Paul