AA Teccie (Paul)

Hi Paul, thanks for the post! Paul, not surprisingly, what Nick has advised is correct. The PTI is not a qualification 'per se' as it is not accredited on the NQF, or Q&CF (Quals & credits framework) as it is now. However it would be submissible as relevant training and when, for instance, I assess AA Technician Members apps with equivalent quals., i.e. not directly arb...ND Forestry / ND LAndscape etc., I would recognise PTI as training at level 3. You are absolutely right in that the course is a short 'hands on', or rather pen loaded, course but I beleive it does in fact cover, certain aspects, of arb knowledge (mainly SHigo / Mattheck / trees & law) to the same level as Tech Cert albeit in a very summarised way designed to be a quick recap. The course is essentially an opportunity to demonstrate competence at detailed tree inspections via a nationally recognised assessment process, i.e. Lantra Awards 'Integrated Training and Assessment' (ITA.) Clearly adequate underpinnig arb knowledge is essential to achieveing this and hence Tech Cert / ND etc. holders, OR indeed those with an equivalent level of arb knowledge as an actual qualification is NOT a prerequisite to accessing the course (although this was considered), are very well placed. Now I've probably shot off on a tangent here and missed the point.... 1. Does PTI stack up as a recognised arb qual against Tech Cert = probably not! 2. Does Tech Cert stack up as a recognised competence award for tree inspections against PTI = probably not! The above is my opinion rather than the AAs but what I would strongly recommend i sthat IF you are serious about undertaking tree inspections and recording/reporting on a regular basis you consider both a recognised qual (min. level 3, i.e. ND Arb / Tech Cert etc.) AND recognised training (PTI / VTA etc.) Right I'llgo now as laeday waffled too much! Hope this to be of help. Paul

Hama, THANK YOU for posting here so I didn't miss it! The reference to 'level 2' in the P v B case refers to the tree inspector, NOT the level of qualification, and implies a 'competent' person, i.e. somoene with adeqaute training, qualification and experience as opposed to a level 1 person 'a generalist' (for completeness level 3 was the specialist.) This was a common confusion at the time and was exacerbated when we at the AA suggested to landowners/estate managers that a level 2 tree inspector should, ideally, have a min. level 3 qualification...aghhhh!!!!!! BUT we also stressed the importance of relevant training, i.e. tree surveying course / VTA course / PTI course, AND experience (with ALL DUE RESPECT not as a tree surgeon/arborists BUT as a tree inspector undertaking detailed examinations...which of course many tree surgeons/arborists do very competently!) Hop ethis clarifies things...a little! Paul

Resembles the graft lines I've observed several times on Silver Lime but on H. chestnut?....A. carnea? Thanks.. Paul

Hello Guy and thank you for posting an enquiry about the 'ARB Approved Contractor' Scheme. Whilst I acknowledge yor seeking views "straight from the horses mouth", so to speak, if you have any specifc questions or queries please don't hesitate to contact me. The process is fairly straight forward to be honest and, from 2011, if you are a 'small' contractor, i.e. upto 5 people (inc. the employer), it will be much simpler AND much better value. Best regards.. Paul (Paul Smith, AA ARB Approved Contractor Scheme Manager)

All being well it will be with us very shortly...I believe (yes, I know, but this time it is much more positive!) Hence in relation to Jonny's previous post either, i) don't bother and wait for the 'new' one, OR ii) pop into your local land based college library and view it there. (Interestingly BS will sell you a copy, yes a 'COPY' for about £80...aghhhhhh!!!!!) Also don't overlook the EAC (European Arb Council) 'Tree Pruning Guide', NOT a BS3998 competitor as it's often referred to and criticised, BUT a fantastic 'must have' general guide with very useful diagrams and explanations...thank you EAC! Cheers all.. Paul

Rookery, All being well there will soon be a 'simple' site specifc risk assessment form, along with a couple of example generics, available as a free download from the AA website. In addition there'll alos be a 'framework document' (???) for a simple H&S policy (which will compliemnt the existing Method Statement framework on there.) BOTH the above will be geared towards the small contractor. Hence, 'Watch this Space'. Cheers.. Paul PS If you'd like to make a small contribution to the cause you could consider joining the AA as an 'Ordinary' member, AND receive the 'Arb Mags' as well..! Sorry don't mean to be a cheeky blighter but just a quick 'sales' pitch but only because I'm seeking more support for that all important 'BIGGER' industry voice (obvioulsy NO obligtaion)...thanks!

Thanks Hama, will keep you posted. The shigo/mattheck bit is essentially an introduction to their basic principles and theories and their application for practical arboriculture so nothing ground breaking or new...and no mention of the 'Clever Clip' model of branch attachment, for instance, either (hope no-one asks me to elaborate, I'd refer them to the latest Arb Journal as I haven't really grasped it myself), albeit this is not either one and actually conflicts with Shigos model. Cheers.. Paul

Dean, in principle I entirely agree with you and sorry I don't mean to bullsh*t you (I guess this is directed at the EA tho!) I'm offering a 'best interpretation' of the current position as advised by the EA. I fully understand your view that it's the 'use' and not the product that should determine whether it is waste or not BUT at this current time the product, or rather the 'producer' of the product, it is and it has 3 seperate waste category classifications on their 'Waste Catalogue'...how sad eh?! As I say I don't have time currently to pursue this any further but I sincerely hope to revisit it at some later stage and hopefully with greater resources available to challenge it. In the meantime however the AA advice will be for WC Licences and Para. 21 exemptions and of course this will be a requirement for 'ARB Approved Contractor' status. Cheers.. Paul PS As Yorkshire Man quite rightly advises (thank you) the EA have issued a position statement on this but it quite clearly states the 'Virgin Wood' exemption does not apply where greenery is included in the load...hmmm!

Many tahnks for your repsonse Chris, and for the further pointers you highlight. Much appreciated. Paul

Hi all, Just a quick post to update you on this course which we ran for the 3rd time yesterday, very succesfully. A very 'full on' day but delivered very effectively by Steve Coombes on behalf of the AA (in, large, part as Steve did all the leg work in putting the course content together...a not inconsiderable task!) As a quick recap the day is designed as a 'signpost' course essentially covering the subject range of knowledge required for AAC Manager status, but not confined to. Indeed as someone who did their Tech Cert in the mid 90s, albeit I have studied for the PD Arb with Dave Dowson since ("DON'T ASK!!!"), it was/is really useful as a quick update/refersher for arb techncial knowledge. But principally it's effectively a 'taster' day and/or an opportunity to assess your arb technical knowledge level and learn where to go for further information. Anyway, reason for posting really is to say that as an outcome to this course we are considering puttting together further one-day technical seminars covering specific subject areas in more detail, i.e 'Tree Anatomy & Physiology' (inc. Shigo & Mattheck) or 'Trees and the Law' (inc. Statute & Common Law) etc., as many delegates requested this, and we would be interested in opening these to the wider industry. Is this a good idea? Would the industry support it? Is there a need for this? To clarify I see these seminars being complimentary to ,and supporting the work of, the land based colleges and industry based educators, i.e. Treelife, through their educational programmes. Clearly they are best placed to deliver formal qualifications and training, i.e. Tech Cert Arb / PD Arb etc., but there seems to be an opportunity for this type of training. Any thoughts..? Thanks in anticipation. Paul

Hi Andy, 'So far, so good eh?' I too would be interested to read peoples feedback, i.e existing ACCs, here but it looks like we may need to wait a while. I am aware of several AACs who monitor where their enquiries come from and the AA website/Directory/Head Office is often a good source for this. As you say whilst financial returns aren't the key aim of the scheme, stanadrds and preformance are, nonetheless the two things are instrinsically linked. However, in the meantime, what I would say is don't see attainment of AAC as your 'end goal', in part as this should be readily achieveable by all competent contractors, but set your goal much higher in terms of status and financial gains and view the accreditation as a step along that road. Many firms, and increasingly, view AAC status as a baseline for further accreditations, i.e. ISO 9001/14001, NHSS 18, 'exor', Achilles etc. etc. albeit retaining the AAC status as it's the only one of these which is industry specific and checks performance standards in terms of tree work quality. The end goal should also be about 'continuous improvement' and advancement both of you as an individual and of the firm as a service provider. In some respects, I guess a good end goal would be repeat customers, both tree owners AND the trees themselves. Best of luck along the road. Cheers.. Paul

Okay, the news is good...generally! FIRSTLY, if you are dealing with 'waste' (IF any greenery/softwood etc. is involved we have to accept it is techncially 'waste' regardless of what we do with it in terms of recycling / reusing etc. The only possible exception here is the 'Virgin Timber', i.e. no greenery!) then the key question is whether you are deemed to be the 'producer' or not (by the EAs own admission a potentially 'grey' area.) Regardless, if the 'waste' generated originates from a domestic dwelling there is no need for a Waste Transfer Note (WTN) provided this is delivered/tipped and stored at the contractors own site, or leased site, which is regsietered as an exempt site as no transfer has taken place (see previous postings to access this on EA website.) However, if you are working on a commercial site, for instance, AND the commercial manager instructs you to remove a tree then he would be deemed the 'originator' (producer) of the waste and a WTN would be deemed a requirement. Indeed this would definately be the case if you were transferring the waste to a third party site AND the third party should require this of you. However, however, if YOU advise the manager the tree needs to be removed, and therefore you are deemed the 'producer' of the waste AND you are transferring it to your own (again, registered exempt site) then you don't need a WTN either (me thinks you need to be careful how you word you qotes here, i.e further to our recent site visit I would recommend etc. etc.) Someone raised the issue of Waste Carriers Licences, and quite rightly so in light of the above, BUT the (very strong) EA advice is that you should as there will undoubtedly be occasions when you are legally deemed to be the 'producer of waste'. i.e. where someone else is responsible through advice for it's production (tree officer) OR where you clear a fallen tree (examples provided by the EA.) In a nutshell: obtain a Waste Carriers Licence, albeit for that odd occasion you may need one, and register your woodchip site as an exempt site and be armed with the infomration above. However, there may still be the occasions when waste transfer notes are required. Lastly they caveat all advice saying this is NOT a definitive statement of law, only the courts can decide that, but is advisory information.....the world we live in eh?, no-ones prepared to nail their colours to the mast, ah well! Lastly, lastly...Tony can you make sense of this and put it in plain English?, many thanks! Cheers all.. Paul PS can we leave the 'revolution' for a coup,e of years until I get the new 'ARB Approved Contractor' scheme up and running and then I'll battle the EA and waste classification again...THANK YOU!

Hi all, hope you're well! I acknowledge there was a very recent posting regrading WTNs but sorry I didn't have time to back search it. Anyway I sincerely hope we have some good news coming from the EA National Policy Team on this matter as it would appear that: 1. IF you are transferring 'waste' (YES, I know...BUT!) from a domestic dwelling it is exempt from the requirement for WTNs. 2. IF you are transferring 'waste' to a site registered under an exemption, i.e. 'Para. 21 exemption then it is also exempt as no transfer has actually taken place. I am currently awaiting confirmation of the above but it does look very promising...fingers crossed everyone! Cheers.. Paul PS The Para.21 exemption does not incur a cost and involves the completion and submission of a relatively simple (for me anyway) form. Obviously though it does then put the firm on the radar, so to speak, and more likley therefore to encounter an uninvited visit...not that that should be of any concern of course!

Interestingly someone recently described this as requiring 'level 3' knowledge for a 'level 2' qualification...which is probably quite accurate. However as Tnoy says it is at level 2 on the NQF....soon to be QCF, just when we've got used to it. Cheers.. Paul

Many thanks Rob, I'll check Honeys out...cheers!

Pete, 'waste' is any product that has a waste classification reference and woodchip etc. has 3, albeit in differnet guises. Re-logs, IF you only transported logs and no greenery perhaps the 'virgin wood' exemption could apply. At the end of the day 'head', 'brick wall' and 'banging' are common phrases and I simply can't commit any more time to this at the moment. Sorry..! Paul

Likewise Rupert, and 'looking very well' you were too! Okey dokey, I reckon I'm worth the extra. mnay thanks.. Paul

I know!, I know!...but that title was on the email response I received from the EA National Policy Team and it kinda set the tone for the response. You may recall I contacted them as the EA were undertaking a review of 'low risk waste' with a view to exempting certain waste products and, on the back of their exemption for 'Virgin Timber', it seemed a good opportunity to try and convince them to include woodchip etc. Anyway, despite my best efforts, too many emails and telephone conversations, they won't budge on it and cited several previous incidents were 'effluent', as run off from woodchip piles, has contaminated water courses (which I was aware of.) Anyway, whilst acknowledging it's unrealistic really, that have cited the exemption for 'virgin timber' and I then enquired whether 'dormant' deciduous trees would be included, i.e. no leaves. It then got a bit ridiculous (and I kinda wished I hadn't asked as I got rather annoyed) but they replied if ALL none woody material was removed at sources, i.e. green twigs / buds and evergreen foliage, then 'yes!' I know there's very (extremely) strong views out there on this subject, AND that there is inconsistency with some EA regions effectively classifying 'woodchip / tree surgery operations' as exempt (I'd keep quiet here as EA Nationally have asked where these regions are...."I dunno???") and not requiring contractors in their regions to hold a Waste Carriers Licence, AND with some issuing a letter/certificate to that effect (lets move house), BUT so far as the AAAC scheme is concerned, AND advice on the matter we give, we will (unformtuantely and apologies) be requiring contractors to hold a valid WCL (thankfully, and I know it's really a principle issue, they don't cost the earth, £140 for 3 years and with a £95 renewal...I think). I don't honestly beleive the 'weight of the industry' will budge the EA on this one and I'm sorry but I can't currently commit anymore time to it. Cheers all.. Paul

Ow, ow, ow Christmas is coming (SORRY!) and as ever my wife n the kids are looking for alternatives to sox n beer...sounds fine by me! Anyway my old Sandvik 21" is just about on it's last legs n I reckon it's about time had a 'fandabidozi' new trendy lookin hand saw, just for general purpose trimmin n pruning small 'bits n bobs' here n there (quite like the toughts of one in a scabard...kinda hang up from John Wayne n 'quick draw McGraw'!) reckon about £30 quid tops. Any thoughts..??? Cheers all. Paul

Not that I've had any direct experience either, and thank goodness by the sound of it, but my understanding is that you are not required to submit CA Notifs using the standard application form...although you can do so and it perhaps wins favours with your LPA. Cheers.. Paul

Chris, apologies for short cutting this thread and for repeating what you probably now know...'good old AA Teccie, bless him!' IF the tree poses a threat to the public highway the the HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, possibly same as the Local Authority, should be notified. They can the serve notice under Sect. 154 and enter the land to remove the tree should the landowner not comply (in theory they can then also attempt to recover the cost from the landowner.) Alternatively if it doesn't affect the Highway but could affect 3rd party land AND if it is posing an immenent threat then Local Gov. Misc. Prov. Act Sect 23 can be used simialrly. At the end of the day what more can you do..? I reckon you've done your best n 'gudonya' for that....yer conscience can be clear. Cheesr.. paul

Oh, okay...sorry, oops! You're right I guess...okay there now £50 quid, ha! Cheers.. Paul

Bearing in mind it's getting to my 'evening retirement time' (I think) I previoulsy recall an oMbudsman's decision being upheld where a LPA placed a condition on a TPO consent for an 'approved contractor' to be used (and maybe veen an AA AC.) The ombudsman determined this was 'unreasonable' as, provided the standard of the work had been set (BS3998), then any contractor, or indeed the home owner himself, could have carried out the consented works to the said standards. That said I think, as a previous LPA, we both conditioned the standard for the work, i.e. BS3998/Euro Tree Pruning Guide AND where it was high level aerial work that a person expereinced and competent in that kind of work should be engaged. Rupert, apologies if I've misunderstood or someone else has replied, but TPOs can be placed as i) indivdiuals, ii) groups, iii) areas (geographical), iv) woodlands or combinations of. Not all TPO trees are individuals. We previously also issued 'Informatives' on CA responses regarding standards, i.e. BS3998, and expereinced / competent people. As you quite rightly say though they are clearly not enforceable BUT most people complied. Thanks all. paul

The AA have a standard set of 'Ts & Cs' fro provision of arb consultancy services whihc have been pulled togther by one of the RCs and then passed through a solicitor (possibly a barrister?) for legal 'beefing'...trouble is this cost a few hundred, if not a thousand or more, quid and AA have to recoup, hence about £30 quid I think...sorry! Cheers.. Paul

Hi Tony, Just a couple of 'further thoughts' within your recommendations (Shigo based). Would you also consider, and I know this is an idealism to some extent, that within those periods of 'Full leaf' and 'Mid-dormancy' you should avoid, wherever possible, prolonged 'dry spells' and 'frost spell' respectively? I also like Shigo's reference to the Achilles Heals, i.e. during the onset of growth and just prior to abscision, which are periods of very high energy use when, ideally, none should be further depleted for defence, i.e. as a result if pruning. (In part it's a pity trees so often seem to buck these trends...particulary self-sown Sycamores...hmmm, why don't they read Shigo?) Cheers.. Paul