AA Teccie (Paul)

Rob, phew...good post (beats mine for mileage!) Tree planting standards, IM(personal)O, are pretty poor across the board but much of the problem with lack of tree establishment starts at the nursery, an issue very close to the heart of Keith Saker of Barcham trees and hence he is involved in the production of a BS, but I think this is affecting nursery parctice rather than planting techniques. In my previous LA role many is the time I've returned under the cover of darkness to replant a tree that the Council lads have buried (i.e spec says hole 900mm deep so tree planted 900mm deep...aghhhhh!!!!) We recently incorporated tree planting into the AAAC standards as a mandatory element, in part to highlight the issue of 'replacement' tree planting, and results have been mixed to be honest. In terms of specs / refs, the JCLI Landscape Manual, or similar, includes a section of tree planting I recall. Also the EAC (European Arb Council) do a pretty good little booklet whihc could also form part of a contract spec titled 'Euro Tree and Palm Planting Guide' (living on the English Riviera it's very appropriate for me, ha.) The issue regarding tree surgeon/arborist and tree surgery/arboriculture is long running and frequently raises it's head. When producing the public guide to employing a tree surgeon the panel sleceted "Choose Your Arborist" in a bid to educate the public and obviously it has a picture of a "tree surgeon" on the front to make the association (personally I would still have liked ot see the words 'tree surgeon' in brackets after 'Arborist'.) At the end of the day you need to amke sure people understand who you are and what you do and in that reagrd, certainly in the UK, 'tree surgeon' is the most familiar term I would suggest. Thereafter it's personal choice for the individual, perhaps "RobArb Tree Surgeon (Arborist)" would have some level of education. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, they are valuable and the more thinkers we have the better the industry will become. Cheers.. Paul

Hi 'Arb Culture', Organisations working to the common good is the way forward as you say (sorry that sounds like a politcial party manifesto...just not me, but you know what I mean) A while ago an 'Arb Liaison Group' was set up with all intesrted parties inc. AA & ISA contributing but I think it's gone quiet at the moment. Perhaps this is an ideal opportunity to 'stoke it up'. I'll speak with Nick (Eden, AA Director) and we'll contact Ian and try to work out a way forward follwoing Ian's advice on this one. Thanks for the prompt and offer of support/help, Ill keep you posted (PLEASE can you email me direct [email protected] so I have your direct contact details...many thanks!) Cheers,.. Paul

Hey 'Skyhuck' good to hear from you! Nope, things are well on and I'm afraid I've been nose to the grindstone bashingthings out. As a quick pre-cursor to the official launch the major changes affect the smaller companies, i.e. 'less than 5 staff' (staff being direct employees + sub-contractors enaged on a regular basis, an average of 3 days per week or more....so now I guess no one engages subbies that often eh? ha!) The scheme will be modular, 1-4 (1. worksite audit - sectional felling with rigging, 2. quality audits - tree planting & tree pruning, 3. office&customer care etc. and 4. h&S compliance / workplace audit), and will be achieveable over a longer period, prob 12-18 months (but ideally within 12months), BUT this option will work out considerably more expensive as it will incur more visits to the contractor. Mod. 1 worksite audit = same for everyone and of all sizes Mod. 2 quality audit & arb knowledge = as above (but where knowledge is lacking in some, as opposed to all, areas an agreed program of CPD will be required.) Mod. 3 = basic procedures suitable to a small company, soi when you raed the standards and it talks about this 'doumented procedure' and that 'documented procedure' that won't be necessary. Just the basics, often with a note pad & diary, but the complaints system will need to be a little more formalised. Mod. 4 = basic compliance (still requires a H&S policy so 'over & above' legilsation but we will supply a policy framework doc. 'FOC' if conatrctors don't have one so hopefully won't be major stumbling block and, in reality, most contractors have one) Workplace Audit, i.e. i) Stores & Workshop + ii) Yard, will be N/A to smaller contarctors (in reality its still likely to get a look over but won't formally be considered in outcome.) Assessment cost is £495 (+VAT...sorry!), currently £870+VAT, and involves one assessor ideally covering all Mods. in the day (I've trialed this and it can be done but it does require much forward planning and coordination from the contractor). This also includes CHAS registration, or renewal if already registered and coincides with renewal date. Annual subs is £260 (+VAT), currently £460+VAT, and includes webiste and Directory entry (we get many calls from people who wnat a reputable contarctor 'on their doorstep' but we can't currently supply as existing ACs too disperate!) NB Above costs are subject to approval from the AA BoD. The 'downside' is that the reassesments are reducced from current 5 years to 4 and include an interim audit at a cost of £295. If you go CHAS accredited via AA we can redo this for you annually at reduced cost of £75 (as opposed to £90). Tooooo much information in obe go but hoepfully gives a good flavour of wheer we're heading/headed! Just leaving Chelt now to drive home (S. Devon) so will check back tomorrow....or ring me on 01803 845140 (office at home on Fridays). Cheers.. Paul

From the AAs point of view I agree...up to the very recent past that is. We have purported to represent the industry but we have never been able to truely do so as we simply reprsentthe minority, hence the claim of elitism. How do we / can we best represent the industry when so few seem to want to be 'included'? As the following contributoir states, get involved and change from within. We are looking at the current AC scheme and making it more accessible, both in terms of criteria & costs, to the 'smaller' contractor (further info very soon to be released). Further we are looking at membership, including releasing use of the AA logo, albeit with retaining and enhancing the 'AAAC' and 'AARC' logos, and how we can make it more appropriate / more attractive. Bottom line, and I know we haven't done that great in the past (through ignorance not intention), the AA is currently managing to service it's memebrship and comitments but with more support, in terms of ACs/RCs & members, we could do so much more and with you involved ('the wider arb community') that could be in the areas you tell us are importnat rather than us just guessing. Lastly, IF, by any remote chance the arb sector got the opportunity to access FC funding it would absolutely be directed at research and development to benefit the plight of urban trees. Thanks for the post...and your honesty, it's imporatnt we/I have the opportunity to hear you rviews and respond. Cheers.. paul

Try this, "The term 'near miss' refers to an event (accident) whihc did not result in personal injury, equip. damage or other loss BUT under slightly differenet circumstances could have done." A 'near miss', if significnat i.e. could have resulted in death or serious injury, could be deemed a 'Dangerous Occurence' under RIDDOR and hence is reportable under the Regs. However, even if it is not, in the opinion of the persons involved and the company 'competent H&S person', it should be subject to the compaines own investigation procedures. The primary objective being to establish the root cause, forgive the pun, of the incident and understand how it can be avoided in future...sorry, statingthe obvious! I think it's down to the judgement of the person involved as to what is deemed a 'near miss' and if in doubt report it...within reason. We often get asked this question durirng AC assmts and I advise that 'if', in the opinion of the persons involved, the consequences could have resulted in an injury/incident that would be reportable under RIDDOR then it should still be. As an industry we notoriously under report incidents (RIDDOR) and under record accidents (accident book) in part as we all accept it;s avery physical industryin whihc we work and 'yer gonna get knocks n scrtaches', whihc is fine, but ignoringthe cause of those can, statistically, result in an increased likley hood of a mjor injury occuring. Very difficult to achieve I know but it starts from teh top,s o tospeak, with good management and a clear culture of good H&S, tidyness and cleanliness (not perosnally!) are a good indication of this culture in operation and strong leadership at all levels throughthe company checking the seemingly minor events as unacceptable and promoting good practice. Sorry, abit H&S waffly but hope it adds something to the debate (apologies alos for rushed respone and poor pselilng!) Cheers all. Paul

Agreed, sorry! Seems quite expensive by comparison, looks like Dave's gonna be busy. Hope it goes well. Cheers.. Paul

Dave Dow...who? (ha) Had great benefit of report writing knowledge from Dave on the PD Arb course I did with...plus of course his 'red pen' critique technique...GRRRRRR! It was excellent. Just for info, as an alternative, the AA 'Arb Consultancy Course' (2 days) also includes report writing and one is running on 22nd Nov. if anyone needs an earlier course. (I've done this one too and also excellent.) Just for info. Cheers all.. paul

Hello Ian, Please bear the AA in mind if there's anything particular we can assist with, or if you would like to draw up some formal agreement so the Association also becomes an affiliated member to add it's weight to the plight of Urban Trees. Best regards.. Paul PS Please email me directly either throughthe AA Forum or '[email protected]' as I often don't get back to specific posting unfortunately...thank you.

In a previous life as a LPS TO I wouldlokk favourably where a contractor included a replacement planting scheme in situations like this involving proposed tree removals. I saw it as a demonstration of commitment to maintaining tree cover AND recognition that there was a will by the LPA to include trees at the site. Whilst the old adage of "nope, sorry missus but you boughtthe house with the trees there so remain they must" is very real, it shouldn't necessarily be so. Where the actual 'amenity value' of the trees is questionable, and obvioulsy the whole context and setting of the site has changed, then surely a more suitable replacement is of greater long term value? Trouble is that's often seen as 'back-tracking' and an admission of an inappropriate TPO when it's anything but, it's about creation of a long term sustainable relationship. Re pre-apps meetings, I understand the LPA's can charge and it's discretionery whether they do or not. Personally I always saw it as a very positive and beneficail exercise...plus an opportunity to keep up withthe locla gos! Cheers all.. Paul

As you may be aware John Flannigan (N. Somerset DC) has always promoted the for a UK 'Tree Commission' as opposed to 'Forestry Commission' to allow access to some of the funding they receive for arb specific programs That said after today there may not be any funds left to allocate. The AA would welcome the opporttunity to be involved. Regards.. Paul

Hi Andrew, I hope all's well. We do talk about CPD requirements, principally for managers, but as you quite rightly say it's important their staff are progressing too. The ISA CA scheme certainly does offer a very good opportuntiy for such but before they can implement it they would need to get staff through the exams AND thereafter support them in their CPD. IMO many compaines aren't quite ready for this at the moment as being 'small' can present challenges in sponsoring what is seen as none essentially training and CPD. Particularly in the current climate BUT I do see this as an investment opportuntiy and it would hopefully help with staff retention. that said some companies do it and it stands out during assesments. Cheers.. Paul

Was gonna say I thought Stihl, and prob Husky, did some techncial workshops you could attend, or is that just at the Arb Show & APF? May be worth contacting Hans Farley at Stihl and asking. Paul

Having previously studied the ISA Cert Arb course (but never did the exams) I completely vouch for its value, very good indeed (and I like, and agree, the way you refer to it as a level 2 qual requiring level 3 knowledge...here, here!) In terms of promoting it alongside AA Approved Contractor, and I know we do the same in the 'Choose Your Arborist' leaflet, it's a different thing really. In essence it is a (very good) individual's craftsman/technician level qualification but not a company accreditation...sorry stating the obvious here! Many of the AAAC managers hold the ISA Cert Arb qual and they always fare much better when it comes to the arb knowledge stuff asscoiated with the AAAC award. Whether the ISA Cert Arb is the way to go for 'RobArb' curently studying for his FdSc Arb, and then onto BSc, I dunno but I would certainly promote the ISA Cert Arb for practising arbs alongside their NPTCs...go frit n 'pm' Silver Back. Cheers.. Paul

Hi RobArb, No attempt to sway you the AA way, only to give a little more info. The ICF (the Institute of Chartered Forestors) as the name implies hold the Royal Charter for Forestry AND Arb in UK&I and hence are the only body able to award 'Chartered Arboriculturist' status to individuals (previously the awarded only chartered forester but now inc. arb too). They also award Chartered Environmentalist status separately if you desire such OR the AA can also award CEnv. if you see any benefit from such (to be quite honest I don't know how, or indeed if, the two awards differ within the separate organistaions in repsect of qualifying criteria.) The AA offer either higher level individual membership opportunities dependent upon qualification held, i.e. Ordinary / Associate / Tech Member / Prof Member / Fellow Member which is desigend to offer a career progression route to those who wish to follow that route. The alternative in terms of an individual competence accreditation, as I see it, for practising arboriculturist is AA Registered Consultant status which does require a level 4 qualification. Not sure that really helps you much as what you really seek is feedback from those who are, or who have been, members of either of both on their relative values and I can't answer that I'm afraid. I guess the Journals etc. will have more of an arb bias with the AA but the you seem keen to 'branch out' (boo hoo!) into the forestry side so that may benefit you further. Okay, as you can see, 'sales' is just not my bag but please ask away if you have any further questions. If you wanna call up the AA for a chat it's better to speak with Guy (Watson) as he is far more familiar with this. Thanks n good luck with your FdSc...braver man than me gungadin! Paul

Hi Bundle, The thinking behind it is that the research papers etc. are only made directly available to those who attended the conference. They are very likely however to be made available to a wider viewing audience via future 'Arb Journals'. Obvioulsy that then raises the issue that you have to be an AA member to access them, but that seems reasonable to me as the 'Arb Journal' is one of the major benefits of membership and becoming an AA member would benefit the industry at large, i.e. a bigger membership = a bigger voice and greater resource available. Cheers.. Paul

Think the proposal here is that the presentations will only be made available to delegates who attended the conference by using a password, to be issued, to access them....probably then to the 'highest Arbtalk bidder?', ha! Doubtless some of them will end up as papers published in the Arb Journal in the near future...fingers crossed! Cheers.. Paul

Not wanting to 'open a can of worms here' and I'm relaxin into the evening in a Prem Inn in Poole (very nice too but got 'elephant feet' in room above...aghhh!) Anyway the AA H&S Package (£45+p&p) contains several vehicle/machine checklist templates for checks etc. to help meet the PUWER requirements (along with lots of other really exciting stuff to!) Just for info, thanks all! Paul

Hi Charlie, I haven't done the ND so perhaps not the best reply but I can confirm the Tech Cert is quite challenging as I did that one! I guess the context(?) of the quals is quite different in that (possibly) the ND delivered in an college etc. approaches the subject from an acedemic / ideal perspective where perhaps the TC comes more from an applied one...dunno! Interested to hear what others say. Good luck if you go for it..! Paul

Cerne, Contact your training provider they should be able to help with a copy if you've registered with them. Paul

Just another quick thought as an alternative. Rather than managing the trees whihc would seem to be of very high ecological, wildlife and habitat value, could you not manage the (seemingly very occasional) targets by either re-routing the footpaths away from the trees OR excluding the targets (people) during inclement weather, i.e. high winds? Westonbirt and other gardens open to the public close when winds get over a certain speed...granted Counicl owned woodland would be very difficult. Dunno..? Paul. PS re the Basic Tree Inspection course it's essentially a basic 'tree hazard spotting' course for none professionals rather than a training course to become a professional, although all knowledge is good.

Absolutely, and sharing the load (or driving) is a sensible thing to do BUT you need to ensure the other chap is eligible to drive, i.e. has a valid licence, and ideally some form of training if driving anything differnt to a car (I guess this could reasonably be 'in-house' training by yourself as an experineced driver / 'trailer tower'). We advise contractors, ideally, to take an annual copy of driving licences and, whilst acknolwedging it may seem OTT and levaing it to the manager's discretion, get them to sign an anula statement confimring "I am eligible to drive, not being banned, and this is a true copy of my one and only driving licence". We advise this as some get a copy of their licence from DVLA before points are added. Cheers.. Paul

Dare I say that's a gender difference, gud'on'her..! Hope she's soon mended. Paul

Decompaction /aeration + mulch is a good start. Don't know how practical though. Unless tree safety / stability is comprimised I would avoid pruning, or certainly excessive pruning, at this stage, i.e. let the tree put all it's available energy into coping with the potentially damaged roots not 'defense' in relation to the pruning cuts generated. Paul

Honestly, IMO yes absolutely as all education is good (knowledge is power) BUT in this industry 'experience' counts for everything, well almost...even at the consultancy level I would suggest. You will find several previous threads on this topic...trouble is I don't know how to do that. Good luck..! Paul

Hi Lee, Fair comment! Generally speaking the risk assessment process should determine the need for a method statement (a 'plan of work') to be produced, often though the two things are combined. In general I'm concerned that many clients, particularly at the LA/commercial level, are asking for risk assessments and method statements as a matter of course and without the MS being really necessary. Principally the requirement for method statement production should be either: 1. On a construction site where other work activities are taking place (the idea being the 'site safety coordinator' can then better understand what the various contractors needs are and how best to coordinate them ensuring no conflicts or dangers.) or, 2. Where a 'complex' operation, perhaps for instance involving crane use, is to be undertaken which has a higher than usual level of risk involved. Sadly though clients see production of a MS as an extra safe gaurd for themselves or perhaps misunderstand the requirements for theer production, either way they're asked for too often AND inappropriately. Lastly if you do need to produce one there is a framework document available as a free download which appears to be being well received in various industries we service. Cheers, n hope all's well! Paul