AA Teccie (Paul)

Hi all, My understanding form previoulsy lloking inot this matter is that DEFRA issue an on-line licence, in effect an exemption licence, whihc allows disturbance etc. in cases of imminenet public danger /public health and, provided you are sure it is 'imminent', you can opertae under the terms of the licence BUT you need to be able to defend you position if challenged and demonstrate there is a clear publci dnager/health issue. ...or summat like that! Cheers all.. Paul

No point wasting people's time with an online 'POLL', leave it with me....but don't expect a change of interpretation quickly. I dunno, the things I bl**dy well do for these guys...ha, (NOT before time...I KNOW!!!!!!) Cheers.. Paul

Hi Dean, Wasn't quite the 'pushover/rollover' you imply, more a fact finding mission (with the EA) and then a 'reasonable' interpretation but 'yes', erring on the side of caution, to protect ACs and members if they choose to follow our advice. As I mnetioned previoulsy, 'rightly or wrongly', this decision considered the 'less than £50 per year' scenario and had it been much greater, and with more support, we would/could have challenged it. This also considered that several LA clients were already requesting it from their contractors. You mentioned you feel you're 'shooting club' give more support and fight unnecessary regulation etc., perhaps tho they have a distinct advantage given the nature of the what they do?!...not really. Cheers.. Paul PS Unfortunately, at this moment in time, other matters are deemed more pressing so I can't (currently) reconsider our stance on this matter...sorry!

Cheers 'Skyhuck', 'Reasonable' (obvioulsy only to some) in that for less than £50 a year you can have 'peace of mind' and probably get back on the road much quicker with a WCL if you get a multi-team pull. BUT I quite agree the principle 'stinks' and, as I sadi earleir, with a bigger voice and more support I'd happily set resources aside to challenge this one! I guess form your side you'll say "prove your worth, get it sorted, n I'll consider it" = stalemate (at the moment). All ACs, with only a couple of exceptions who have an "exemption certificate/letter" issued by their local EA office, must have a WCL in oredr to comply with the scheme AND copies are often requested by clients, albeit at the LA/commercial level and not 'Mrs Miggins' = could we give a dispensation here?...dunno! Would rather tackle the subject and get a definitive from 'the courts'...anyone fancy it? Cheers.. Paul PS Where do I send the cheque???

Re- Waste TRANSFER Notes, the fairly none commital response I got from the EA Policy Team was that as we weren't transferring 'hazardous' waste, and accepting that most of our waste is recyclable and often has a value, she wasn't recommending we should have them, unlike for the 'CARRIERS' licence. Hence we don't insist on this sytem for ACs BUT we do check where 'waste' goes and what outlets are availbale to the company. That said though several ACs do operate a 'basic' waste transfer note system as they've been advised to do so by their local EA office...another inconsistency...AGHHHHH!!!! Cheers../ Paul

Hey 'Yoashman', I would suggest that unless you are on the payrole for RSPB then they are actually engaging you as a 'main contractor' not sub-contractor, hence you are well advised (not a legal requirement) to have 'public liability' insurance, in fact RSPB should insist upon it. As to from where (sounds likes 'Nessa' of 'Gavin n Stacey') as other suggest try across (left or right dependent whihc way your standing???!!!) or, under the circumsatnces, perhaps try NFU...dunno? Cheers.. Paul

Hi all, SORRY I've clearly stirred something of a 'hornets nest' here and I fully understand why. BUT woodchip/'greenwaste'(including wood residues) has at least 3 separate 'waste categories/references' hence reagrdless of 'our' interpretation of whether it's waste or not is probably is. The 'exception' to this would be 'virgin wood' BUT this would have to contain NO greenery whatsoever, including buds n shoots (I've been quoted by the EA) nor other 'contaminants', i.e. soil, grass, sweepings etc. There's also a consideration as to 'who' as actually instructed the works and therefore who has responsibility for the 'waste' produced. Simplistically (???) if you have, and therefore (arguably) it's 'your' waste you don't need a licence BUT if someone else has then its there's and you do. Bottom line the whole bl**dy thing is a mess and many EA officers don't understand it themselves...so how can they expect us to??? However, it would 'reasonably' appear that at some stage during the course of our mormal work we would be captured by the requiremenst for a waste 'CARRIERS' (not TRANSFER...normally!) licence and therefore we require it for AC status and would always advise all tree surgeons obtain one. As I mentioned earlier these cost are quite reasonable '£140 for 3 years' (£95 renewal) AND if you get 'pulled in' for roadside checks whihc include EA if you've got a 'WASTE CARRIERS LICENCE' (and ideally a Para.21 'exemption certificate' if you store woodchip on your land or land you rent if the landowner don't have one...and they're FOC!) they should simply 'tick the box' and wave you on so you get through quicker and back to earning money! I WHOLLY AGREE IT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF THE MATTER that gripes and if we (the AA) had a bigger voice, i.e. more members/ACs, it is something we(I) would seriously consider challenging. Sorry for the 'waffle' (back to the good old days eh!) Cheers all.. Paul

Hi all, Whilst 'in principle' I would agree and endorse what has been said above in terms of liaison with the LPA (Local Planning Authority, the Authority responsible for TPOs etc. (sorry, 'grannies/eggs/sucks!)) in so doing I would make it clear that in your opinion it is NOT a tree and you are informing them as a matter of courtesy, albeit very politely of course. My concern is that if you ask 'if its included?' it could end up TPO'd and yes, okay, there is the opportunity to object etc. etc. therefater but why go there in the first place if you can avoid it. Obviously if the TO is minded to TPO it they will do so anyway...hopefully not though. Lastly, in order to clarify the situation of measure stem diameters and to demonstrate complete consistency (NOT!) my understanding is as follows: 1. In the 'arboricultural world', inc. TPO/CA & Dev. sites & conditional survey this is measured at 1.5m above ground level (agl). 2. In the 'forestry/silvicultural world', inc. felling licences & timber conversion etc. etc. this is measured at 1.3m agl. 3. In the tree production/nursery world, albeit as a girth/circumferential(?) measuerment, this is at 1.0m There...hope that helps (AND, as always, stand to be corrected...c'mon Hamadryad I know you're waiting in the wings to pounce...tee hee!)

Coupla a quickies on 'air spades' for your info! Glynn Percival (Bartletts) is very positive about them as the most effective means of soil decompaction and, according to 'essentailArb' believes they may have some 'cultural effect' on Honey Fungus as aprt of root collar excavations. Secondly we (the AA) have sponsored research being undertaken by AAIS about the effects of air-spading on tree health and an introductory article will be in the Summer Newsletter. Cheers.. Paul

SORRY, GONE FOR A BEER...BACK TOMORROW! Paul

As I'm sure are many..."watching with keen eyes"! The approved (Registered) consultants is not my bag, directly, but I'm happy (no really!) to feedback to my colleague Guy (Watson) who manages the scheme any comments or feedback you have...no probs! (anything to deflect work from me...tee hee!) Cheers.. Paul

My bigger hope is it's a good move for the industry 'Hamadryad' and "those who sail in her!" Sounds like I should be on telly tomorrow night with the other '3 stooges' eh! Thanks, much appreciated! Paul

Hi Mozza, Frustratingly 'YES' I would strongly advise you obtain a WCL. Not all circumstances surrounding what you do will require one BUT many will and at £140 for 3 year licence with £95 renewal (I think) we insist on it for ACs. Obvioulsy it's not for me to dictate to you, AND I can't say 'yes' it's a clear and absolute legal requirement, in the same way 'Employers Liability' insurance is (IF you employ people of course!), but I can quote you 3 separate waste reference nos. for woodchip etc. and bore you with details of previous correspondence if you wish....but "not tonight Josephine" as (cue violins) I've been sat in front of this bl**dy thing since about 7.30am this mornin n I need a beer. Cheers.. paul

Just a quickie to let you know this topic hasn't gone to sleep, indeed it's keeping me awake most nights...awwww! The review is now well underway with a 'proposed' new structure almost completed and one which I sincerely hope the 'smaller' companies, i.e. 'less than 5 staff' (employees+regular subbies...to be defined), will particularly like BUT more importantly consider to be fair, equitable AND 'value for money.' I have endeavoured to take on board, and act upon, the issues raised in previous postings and on Andy's 'POLL' (thanks again for that Andy, informal BUT very useful!) and of course the feedback we received to the website consultation...collectively an extremely invaulable exercise, many thanks to all who participated. What I would advise if you fall in the 'less than 5' category AND you are thinking about AC status in the near future then 'hang fire' for a while, if you can, until you see the detail of the revised scheme. In terms of timescales this MUST roll out on 1st Jan. 2011 at the latest BUT I hope we may be able to do so sooner...how much sooner = dunno at this stage. Thanks for reading all. Cheers.. Paul

Believe it or not whoever you spoke to at the EA is wrong, BUT this is not the first time I have come across regional offices inconsistencies, variations and 'dud' information being supplied to contractors enquiring, indeed it prevails. We have a definitive, well as much as they were prepared to, from the EA National Policy Team...na, na, nana, naaaaaa....tee hee! I think someone mentioned previoulsy the EA lady they had a 'good time with' (or simialr) was vague and said it's a grey area and hey if there's confusion to be exploited, particularly on their side, then go for it..just get it in writing in case you have to 'prove it' at some stage. Good luck..! Paul

Hi Dean, Back to your oiginal point. IMHO unless specifically excluded, and written as such, anything 'woody', and whatever size, can be included in a Woodland TPO...unlike the 'Area' TPO of course. Hence the Laurel is clearly included and the time to object to this has probably passed. Hence I would suggest your best bet is to produce a 'woodland management plan', whihc includes phased removal of the Laurel and replacement planting (or natural regen if it happens) with more suitable species. Good luck..! Paul

This exemption is from the requirement to register as a 'Waste Transfer Centre' NOT an exemption for a WCL....sorweeee! Paul

Trouble is, from an EA perspective and after MUCH time spent on this subject, the minute there's a bit of 'greenery' in there it's 'waste' not virgin wood. Do you need a waste transfer licence = not usually, and EA would not say otherwise. Do you need a 'waste carriers licence' = yes, probably. Cost about £140 for 3 years and £100(ish) at renewal, so we've included it as a 'must have for ACs. Paul

Previously I operated as a self-employed arb consultant who earned no where near the VAT threshold but I voluntarily regsitered as several prospective clients wouldn't have looked at me otherwise. A spin off was I was able to claim VAT back against all sorts and even with paying someone to do my quarterly VAT returns I was still 'in profit' with it. Would I in your position = dunno, as Steve says check with the companies who engage you and if they are VAT registered it will, effectively, have no impact on your day rate but may work well for you. Cheers.. Paul

Probably gonna embarass myself here but 'hey ho' never stopped me before! Picea = 'peg' retained at base of needle when plucked Abies = 'absence of peg' when plucked. (Hope that's the right way round.) The other one I remember is 'fern, urn = Western" (Red Cedar, Thuja plicata). The fern relates to the 'fern like foliage', the 'urn' relates to the little cone looking like an 'urn' and together they point to it being a 'Western.....Red Cedar'. Tony pinched my last one...boo hoo! Cheers all.. Paul PS When doing Conifer id's for college previously I found a trip to the local garden centre, provided they were correctly labelled of course, was a big help.

Hi all, interesting thread. I quote: "Plus if you dont attend the course and do come across bats on a job you can claim you had no idea, whereas if you do the course and distub a bat you are opening your self up to prosecution." This whole Bat issue is potnetially a bit of a nightmare and I really don't know how best to advise people. Natural England recently produced a very usful guidance note rgarding 'Disturbing Badgers', also a protected species, and, to some extent, what you can and can't do. I contacted them and asked if they could produce something for 'Disturbing Bats in Trees' but it fell obn 'deaf ears' with no response...perhaps they're equally unsure themselves how best to advise us in light of the recent(ish), 2007, significnat 'upgrading' of bat protecetion under the 'Habitat Regs.' Going back to the post 'quote' above my understanding (PLEASE 'Chris G' confirm or otherwise) is that ignorance or unawareness is NO DEFENCE, even if "acting in accordnace with an otherwise lawful act", or summat similar, so I really would NOT rely on this as a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card. Better, I would suggest, to attend a 'recognised' bat awarness course, even if only for one-day, when actually it reinforces your existing knowledge and them put in place 'reasonable measures', including a specific 'wildlife risk assessment process' (luv that'un eh?!) probably involvuing referal to a bat specilist / ecologist where a site/tree is identified as being 'at risk' from your initial site specific RA...OTT = too right BUT, IMO, this is your best defence OR 'mitigation' if you get caught short but I don't know if it will really help as it's not yet been tested in the courts as far as I'm aware. Good luck n go careful..! Paul

Hi Andrew, I'm not sure it would be down to the 'arb' to produce the MS here but more the role to input to the highway engineer spec for kerb installation within the RPA (or actually perhaps it would). The arb would sya what can and can't be done and the engineer would come up with a design solution. In Cheltenham previously, this included 'molding' (for the want of a better description) concrete around tree buttress roots which had deflected and pushed the existing kerbstones out into the carriageway resulting in several damaged tyre claims against the Council. A 'compromise' solution whihc the highway engineer accepted would need to be re-done about every 3-5 years but it allowed retention of early mature Lime trees whihc formed part of an avenue, so were very important 'amenity' trees. I'm sure there are 'arb consultants' out there who do have standard MSs for this situation, as it's not that uncommon IMO, but whether they're willing to share them is another matter as obvioulsy they will consider that to be part of their professioinal consultancy service provision to a 'fee paying' client....which is fair enuff! NJUG Vol.4 & BS 5837 are good leads along with 'TRiBE' publciation ('Tree Roots in the Built Environment'). Good luck.. Paul

Hi Bob, Most coursese need a min. of 8 to make them viable but this one is actually delivered extrenal to the AA so I need to check. Wil post back Monday. Cheers.. Paul

just realised I'm missing it on the beeb n apparently "the sun will come up tomorrow...!" Tee hee... Have a good 'rest of' weekend all. Paul (AKA 'sad git!')

Hi Andy, Look on the positive side, as well as storng bones n teeth you'll have a luverly coat too...CRUFTs here you come! Joking apart, hope you find something to ease the pain, I also take CLO 'straight' form the bottle (impressed...'am well arrd!') but haven't for past coupla weeks as run out n no time to get to supermarket for replacement suplies n joints r aching lots. Tc mate. Paul