AA Teccie (Paul)

PS - If it's of interest, we/I deliver a 1-day seminar / workshop on BS3998 which, if you're considering, offers a significant discount to members (see https://www.trees.org.uk/Training-And-Events/Course-Detail?id=E3E82C2E-094B-486A-B741-6EFFC2688CC8 for a northern even but we're also delivering in the midlands later in the year https://www.trees.org.uk/Training-And-Events/Course-Detail?id=CD29BF71-1C8D-4526-B9D6-7619D0ACBCED ) Apologies for the 'sales pitch' Paul

Hmmm, there are many difference with the actual finished version / document tbh so I wouldn't recommend. The 'TreeLife' option (BS3998-Concise Guide) is the best one tbh but it doesn't include the appendices...in relation to 'pruning' Table B1 (attached) is the most relevant. In relation to MoPs 'buying a copy ' to check works...never gonna happen tbh, and why more businesses don't use the document for marketing purposes when meeting with customers I really don't know...but then maybe £230 is reason enuff . Cheers, Paul

Probably Blackthorn as flower's, and very floriferously, before leafing...I hope

Think Steve means forming a company isn't necessary, you could offer the service as a sole trader. You will indeed need 'Professional Indemnity' insurance.

As with all / any risk assessment documentation, or indeed any H&S documentation, don't just blinded purchase / download and adopt as it is because, in reality, at that stage it's unlikely to meet the "suitable and sufficient" test. I've just downloaded their stuff and, in general, it appears to cover the main points of the RA process but does need to be read in conjunction with the 'instruction manual' (also available to download) to use it to best effect. Not sure about some of the risk ranking / rating outcomes tbh but that's always a subjective element and open to debate ("not tonight please" ) and appears to assume climbing for all tree surgery works....mmmmm. Similarly the method statement is okay but does miss out welfare arrangements, often an 'eye-brow' raiser but very relevant to construction (of which the document has a strong flavor.) Not surprisingly, if you're keen to adopt industry specific / industry produced stuff then I know an organization who can help TTFN.. Paul

Yep, Bird Cherry

Cryptomeria...yup

Think you need to educate your accountant. CIS is an abbreviation for 'Construction Industry Scheme' so if you only (currently) work for residential customers = not relevant / not applicable. Cheers,Paul PS Lots of previous threads on this subject, but where it is applicable, generally, poss take a look at https://www.gov.uk/what-is-the-construction-industry-scheme

Hi Swinny, thanks for your question, very relevant. Many/most of the assessors are also Lantra trainers / NPTC assessors, or have been so, or are NPTC qualified themselves so understand what "good practice" looks like. They also have 'industry experience,' albeit not as extensive as many operators, and they are formally H&S qualified, i.e. NEBOSH, and SSIP registered auditors and hence understand H&S management, and operational safety, very well. Whilst a very important, and key, aspect of the assessment process, the onsite operational stuff is 1 of 4 modules to be considered and hence the assessor needs all round knowledge and experience. Cheers, Paul

Morning Andrew, hopefully a little more awake now to better respond (apologies.) The principle of sampling is great, and applied effectively is very useful to see a representative sample of, for instance, documents or process outcomes etc. Applying that principle in an office, or factory etc., environment is a fairly straight forward process. Applying it to arb teams working across a region on differing operations is logistically fair more challenging, not to say we can't / shouldn't, and as I mentioned at the 'interim' reassessment (Yr.3 of 4 Yr. cycle) where the operations we require to see is much less specific, i.e. 'aerial tree work,' we do to some extent. The initial assessment, or full reassessment (Yr.1 or the 4 Yr. cycle), is much more prescriptive in terms of the operations, i.e. "..involving rigging", and as an actual job, and hence the likelihood of multiple teams being suitably deployed is much reduced. However, certainly a very useful comment and one I will mull, as is my 'MO', over the coming miles on the road...thank you. Paul

Hi Ben, thanks for your post. Apologies for the 'mauling' but as scheme manager I'm pleased to learn the standards have been applied and assessed rigorously...but hopefully reasonably / fairly. Particularly as a participant business in the scheme ("thank you") please don't hesitate to volunteer any suggestion you may have as to how we can improve the scheme and/or the assessment process. Thank you for your last comment, quite 'insightful'...and hopefully avoiding the need to be 'hindsightful' (a strapline crabbed from Achilles but very apt relating to your comment.) ATB, Paul

Nope, 50/50 in reality, with site safety inspection(s), completed tree planting & pruning works + arb tech knowledge, plus workshop, store, yard, chip / timber storage too. With the smaller businesses this is probably 40/60 office / site as the focus is very much on outcomes and performance. Cheers, Paul

By depot / offices, i.e. at the point of service delivery. But once one depot is approved, which usually includes a Head Office audit, its difficult to control giving the impression the whole business is approved. Paul

In reality, with a reassessment visit once every two years, and a desktop review on the 'in between' years, we can only see so much and it is incumbent upon the approved contractor to self audit regularly and improve areas requiring such (this process is part of the evidence we require to see.) Long drive, just arrived home, so gonna leave it there for tonight. Regards, Paul

Hi Andrew, I'm sure had we been on that site, on that day, at that time, we would have spotted any short-comings. The incident, whilst serious, n thankfully no-one was hurt, is exceptional IME, and I'm really not sure how the assessment process would / could have taken account of what happen and the circumstances surrounding it...and therefore what we need to review accordingly. Your proposed improvement is fine in theory, and would probably work if the contractor had multiple teams operational, and if they were all undertaking the operations required by the standards, e.g. rigging, but this is often not the case. We do, at least to some extent and where possible, adopt the approach you outline, particularly at the interim reassessments where we have more flexibility, but, regardless, even the perceived "golden gang" that we allegedly see at every visit frequently present with 'opportunities for improvement.' Always open to improvements and ideas so please "keep'um'rolling" but I'm now on the road for a few hours so it might be tomorrow before I can get back to view. Thanks again for your interest in 'ARB Approval' Paul