AAAC scheme public consultation.... The summary report.

[Stephen Blair]

i used to be a member of the AA for years, it was great and i didnt think it was very expensive and very easy to join, but all my vehicles come with 3 years warranty now so i dont see the point.

[Amelanchier]

Classic.

[Stuart A-C]

The thing that confuses me is that there are AAC's setting up satellite offices in other parts of the country and still advertising as 'approved'. Surley the satellite office or base and staff would have to be assesed individually to gain its status? Or the company would have to prove they are monitering and offering the same standards?

[Andy Clark]

As I've said on another thread - there are some false dichotomies here.

 

What, in your opinion, is a non amenity tree?

 

A TO's remit is wider than you think but varies post to post. My given duty for the LPA I worked for was to "Protect and enhance the natural environment and green infrastructure of the district". So there is a considerable difference between the job role and the statutory duties of the TCPA 1990.

 

Trying to raise the standard of work is part of that duty regardless of who is undertaking it AAAC / Non-AAAC / Cowboy / Landscaper / Homeowner / Bored window fitters. Most of it is education, but occaisionally it is enforcement. Now whether you think it works or not, the AA has a complaints procedure, which provides an additional enforcement option.

 

Would you prefer that TO's were prevented from using this option? Given that TO's strive to raise standards (or should do at least), why do you want them to exempt AAACs?

 

There are no false dichotomies Tony, just factual counter arguments that you keep choosing to ignore...... on this thread, and the other.

 

You yourself made the point regarding TO's being stretched for time/resource. That reality is indeed true. But it is further true to the point that is clearly and evidently documented, by other TOs themselves, that even with this being the case, the quality of LA tree work is below industry standard...... not necesarily in EVERY LA agreed, but most certainly in some, nonetheless.

 

In SOME LAs, the adopted approach is simple..... "You're work's not up to scratch.... ta-ta". And that standpoint is moreoften the case BECAUSE the TO has an already stretched workload, and doesn't not have the time to get into the in's and out's of "policeing". Which is obviously fair enough.

 

So why add to that already stretched work load? Surely that just goes to compound the time/resource problem further, rather than actually improve it?

 

Clearly, the LA has a remit of manageing its green infrastructure, regardless of the particular role of Tree Officer, Landscape Officer, Trees and Woodland Officer, Arboricultural Officer, or however the LA define its staff...... But i think the point that Iain is trying to make, is who's best interests should determine the way in which that "green infrastructure management" be carried out??

 

The Trees? The LAs? The TOs? The Contractors (regardless of consideration of professional affiliation)? Or the Tax-Payers?

[Meep]

The thing that confuses me is that there are AAC's setting up satellite offices in other parts of the country and still advertising as 'approved'. Surley the satellite office or base and staff would have to be assesed individually to gain its status? Or the company would have to prove they are monitering and offering the same standards?

 

I quite like the way that they advertise the approved office in the little AA box's in the Yellow Pages using an 0845 phone number that diverts to a none approved office.