AA Teccie (Paul)

...and Plippy! Sorry, got ot dash now. PLEASDE keep feedback coming. Thanks all. Paul

Fair comment, tahnks John.

Mornin all, hope you're well! If I may I'm seeking your views/comments regarding the ARB Show. It is noticeable that there hasn't been the same 'buzz/banter', indeed if any at all, as there is with the Capel show. Is this because it's too big (by comparison)? Is it viewed as a trade/suppliers event rather than industry? Is it because you have to pay for entry? Is the beer too expensive (ha)? Any and all comments / views would be greatly appreciated as we alwasy have a formal review meeting after and I sense there may be a need for change. Many thanks all.. Paul PS For those who are attending please be sure to give me a shout (I'm hoping to spend sometime with Steve at the 'Arbtalk' plot.

More likley to be Almond than Cherry tree, which I don't think suffers it, and 'yes' peach leaf curl see Royal Horticultural Society | Advice Search | Peach leaf curl Chicken vindaloo for me...in a bucket tho? Paul

Hi Al, Sorry for a 'rushed', and fairly scantly researched, reply here but p.140 of the HSE Rigging Research has a table of weight of green Oak and it gives a 5m long 'x' 1m dia. at approx. 4 metric tonnes (if I'm reading it correctly) but there are then correction measures to add...which I don't really understand, sorry! Hope of (some) help. Paul

Hi all, thanks for the posts. I fully acknowledge the diffculty, and limitations, is producing a spec that is too restrcitive. However at the same time one needs to ensure it is deatiled enough and seeks to protect you if challenged for the works that have been undertaken. For instance, Hama mentioned about the small piece of deadwood over the greenhouse that would be below the 50mm dia. threshold maybe = good point, but my concern is when actually 'deadwood' means remoavl only of 'major' (larger) deadwood and that small piece falls off and causes damage. The client then has reasonable grounds to challenge what you've done, or rather not done, i.e. not removed the small piece over the greenhouse, but if the spec said 50mm dia. or greater you'd have a defense. Now, in reality and as part of your professional service provision, you WOULD remove that smaller piece and you can them point that out to the client, i.e. I've done a bit more than spec'd. to protect the greenhouse AND hopefully get another cup of tea and maybe even a 'Milk Chocolate Digestive'. Clearly there is alos a need to include a 'condition' in your Ts&Cs whihc says the work specification may change based on aerial observations when the tree is climbed but any additional costs incurred will be agreed beforehand...or summat to that effect, appen. Cheers all.. Paul PS Hama, re the 50mm wound dia. limit on Birch I wholly accept your point but this is very difficult to justify when a client wants a CL undertaken involving removal of primary branch which is 100mm. For me the key is education, i.e. advise the client of the consequences then they can make an informed decision being fully aware of the effects. Also where will all the 'bugs and beasties' hide if we don't make a few cavities...awwww!

Hi Tommer, thanks for the reply and apologies I wasn't sure if the spec was yours or the TOs and thanks also for seing the positive in my contribution. My comments are offered purely for discussion as I try to come at things from a different perspective sometimes...perhaps part of my 'warped mind' approach, ha! Cheers n keep up the (bl**dy) good work! Paul

As everyone quite rightly says a damn good job well done...great to see, thanks. In terms of your spec, which is generally very good, I would perhaps have introduced the term 'selective', in relation to the canopy (or 'crown') reduction which is then further prescribed and maybe have provided more detail in relation to the deadwood removal, i.e. 'major deadwood' (circa 50mm dia., or greater, at the base and/or longer than 500mm ...for instance). Also mention could be made to relevant industry standards, i.e. BS 3998 & European Tree Pruning Guide, in the context of 'works to a minimum standard of (where appropriate)...etc. etc. Sorry, as I said no reflection on a damned good job and endorsement of such from your piers is the best applause of all...BUT you have mine too! Tree work specifications is a regular area requiring improvement on AC assmts as either none BS3998 compliant terminology is used, obviously sometimes this is approriate, and often the works are not adequately prescribed. I always suggest when writing a spec you enviasge another contractor having to undertake the works...puts quite a different perspective on things. Sorry, gone a bit off thread here! Cheers all.. Paul

The LOLER ACOP talks about those undertaking 'thorough examinations', AKA LOLER inspections, being 'competent' so to do. It further mentions competence includes having an understanding of how and where the equipment being examined is used....therein may lie a problem? Cheers.. Paul

My recollection is that the LPA (Local PLanning Authority) have a duty to 'advertise' TPO applications but not necessarily including the posting of notices, although this is commonly done and particularly where known sensitive sites are involved. Usually the local paper & Council website is where the majority are posted. Dependent upon council policy and delegated authority arrangements, i.e. decisions the Tree Officer can make without referral, he may be perfectly wihtin his/her durisdiction to say 'Yeah' or 'Nay'. However, usually, where there are objections made to the application it is referred to a council committee, Planning (?), for determination. See Chapter 6 of the TPO guide for further info at Tree Preservation Orders: A Guide to the Law and Good Practice - Planning, building and the environment - Communities and Local Government Hoping this to be of help. Cheers.. Paul

Hi 'Arbogrunt', tahnks for the post. Fair comment, I think ('risky!') in part the advantage would be to a sole trader operating as an independent company/firm and theerfore able to be recognised and advertise themselves as such to clients. I agree tho, if you are a sole trader alwasy operating as a freelancer (hope okay to use that term) then why would you go AAAC? Afterall if you're not 'worth your salt' you wouldn't get any work. Cheers.. Paul

Hi Frank, apologies for delay in replying, been away over the weekend! Hmmm, that kinda reminds me of 2 separate companies/firms working together but each having their own distinct operation. Do you always work together or are there times when you work alone, with the subbie grounder (aerial rescuer?) Off the top, we may be able to offer a combined assessment but theerafter the 2 sole traders would be treated separatley...I think! Thank for the 'conundrum'! Paul

Hiya Pete, The 'detail' of the review is currently being worked up and we hope to launch the 'new' scheme in September (fingers crossed.) The 'new' requirements, to be honest, will essentially be very similar to what we have now and what a company should be doing anyway. Much of the emphasis will be placed on the worksite audit (sectional felling) and quality audits (tree planting & tree pruning), along with an adequate knowledge (not necessarily supported by a qual) of a range of arb topics. In relation to the stucking point of H&S (documentary evidence) current discussions are debating whether to follow the CHAS approach, i.e. 'less than 5' = much lower level required (as previously indicated) OR provision of generic policies/risk assessments/method statements and offer of assistance to contractors working towards accreditation to achieve the necessary level fo documnetary complaince (this also provides the 'small' company with the framework to expand and meet the '5+' requireemnts if a client/LA requires such.) Hmmm, lots of thinsg to discuss n sort. No word back form EA yet re - WCLs but will chase next week hopefully. have great weekend Paul

Hi Frank, thanks for the post. My only question here is who would be the 'applicant', and then the 'approved', company/firm as the accreditation is not to an individual (albeit clearly their has to be a 'key' individual nominated as the responsible manager for the approved contractor)? We could not, for instance, award to 'Joe Smith & Bob Jones'...I don't think. Or perhaps we could but it wouyld be very unorthodox (which is fine) but what would happen to the approval if 'Joe' or 'Bob' left?...a full reassessment may be required. Is it worth forming a partnership as a firm maybe and then the approval would be straightforward, i.e. Smith & Jones Tree Surgeons....dunno?! Lastly, and particularly as a 'small' company, I would hang fire and await the outcome of the AAAC review. Hope this answers your question, please post back or call me if not. Cheers.. Paul

Probably, thanks for that! Didn't realise it was a generic hybrid like Leylandii. Paul

Well, I don't have any photos I'm afraid (as I never remember the camera) but just as a quick contribution I was in the centre of Southampton yesterday and, for the first time ever (AND I've actually never heard of it before), I saw a tree called a 'Sorbopyrus spp.' (can't remember the species name) and whilst largely an unimpressive and uninteresting tree nonetheless a 'CHAMPION' (thought that was the 'wonder horse'!) and labelled as such! Cheers all. Paul

My 'ten penneth'...if I may (frustratingly tho I never seem to get back to the thread to see what further's been said.) Anyway..."reduction by 3-4m" originally permitted = WHAT???...WHY??? Perhaps a CA notif. where tree not deemed worthy of a TPO appen but to have undertaken those works would have severly affected the tree's amenity, albeit limited anyway. In terms of the pruning, IMO, principally owing to the previous management I guess, the crown had developed quite densely ('congested'?) and the combined crown thin (excellent!) and selective crown reduction is a damn good job...well done! In terms of it being 'pointless' I think this view stacks up less where Silver Birch are involved rather than say Lime or Silver Maple and I reckon the client will get a good 3, maybe 5, years of a less imposing tree in the interim. From the tree surgery professionals point of view, provided that was explained to the client, i.e. it's not a permanent fix, and they accepted then do the 'transaction'. Good job Rupe, my previous (very, very limited) mentoring serves you well....tee hee! Cheers.. Paul

Ooops, sorry didn't notice anyone was here as you've been neglecting me recently....awwwww! The answer to the original question is 'Yes', you can become AAAC being a single 'sole trader' utilising sub-contractor labour only AND be a sub-contractor (freelance arborist) yourself. AND further, as an AAAC, you can during peak periods and busy times etc. engage bona fide sub-contractors, i.e. other treework contractors. Indeed we do check your processes for doing so as this is a key CHAS requirement (but we always have anyway but do so more rigorously now.) The essence of the scheme is about 'quality and standards' and at ALL times, regardless of staff changes etc., YOU are responsible! If YOU move on, as the nominated approved manager in effect, then we re-assess the company and your replacement to check they're up-to-scratch. Loopholes?...possibly, to some extent, and very difficult to manage if someone wishes to abuse the system but that's life and shouldn't stop us setting minimum expected standards as a professional industry and to which most will adhere and respect. Cheers all...sorry I was a little late! Paul

I'm really sorry to hear the industry is not supporting you Alex and I sincerely hope someone here can help give you the opporrtunity you deserve...c'mon guys??? I worked the doors, too many years ago, was it more fun than tree climbing?...certainly the old 'Riverside Club' (just outside Southport) had several memeorable moments in my formative years! Enjoy.. Paul

My view of newcomers to the industry, with notbale exceptions and most of whom post here on Arbtalk (hope that gets me out of it!), is that we have many very competent tree climbers AND many very competent climbers / chainsawers BUT few 'competent arborist', i.e. who can climb, use a chainsaw well BUT most imporatntly, when it comes to pruning, know where (and when) to cut...and probably when to lose the noisy cutting thing and go for the old fashioned approach...15" Sandvik yeah!!!! Cheers.. Paul

Exactly, I wholly agree, you have a professional (and probably moral) duty to eductae the client to the error of their ways BUT if they're hell bent on doing that then better you do it safely for them than others who may not...and, afterall, get some return on your time spent with them. This scenario often arises with AC assessment when I pose the question, usually in relation to 'topping a Poplar'. In reply, and as a last resort, I will accept the contractor may undertake the work BUT only after they've fully explained all the consequences to the client and why it doesn't accord with good arb practice AND offer alternatives....ideally then document this in the quote = fair do's! DON'T get me wrong, I'm certainly NOT advocating this is acceptable really, and certainly not as the norm, BUT, on occasion when the quote book is looking a little sparse then you have aliving to earn. Cheers all.. Paul

TRy Kev Moore at the BTS Group who are Norfolk based they may have opportunities. Have to google their number as I don't have it. Good luck..! Paul

Thank you Tony, you pipped me to the post..so to speak. Hope you're keeping well! Paul

Hi Ian, that's exactly my point. We really do need to get to the root of the problem (forgive the pun) as, IMO, wihtout access to a very good mentor it's highly unlikley many 'new/young' arborist, who can clearly climb well as with 'Alderwood', will develop into skilled arborists. Many of the ND Arbs whihc used to include a middle year workplacement no longer do and that's one significant factor in my mind. Cheers.. Paul

Ooops, apologies, you're quite right standards should be upheld....trouble is I do sometimes (over) relax on here when we move away from officialdom! Thanks for the reminder..! Paul