AA Teccie (Paul)

Hi all, Firstly I recognise that (many) more subsequent postings have gone but I'm afraid time is (extra) pressing this week and hence I'm jumping into Tony and Simon's responses collectively and hoping that answers some of the others. Firstly the AC scheme has to recognise that if you employ/engage (by 'engage' I mean to include subbies/freelancers working for the company on a 'regular' basis, yet to be agreed with HSE&CHAS, but probably '3 or more days per week over a typical 12 week period...or summat like that, AND 'YES' I know what you're thinking, another potentail 'loophole', but other accreditations schemes recognise this threshold) then the HASWA 74 & Management Regs do not require you to have 'written' policy and risk assessments respectively. That is NOT to say you don't have to have a 'strategy' (policy) in place for managing H&S nor undertake an assessment of risks on a site, of course you do BUT, crucially, you are not obliged to have written evidence of this. It recognises that, with so few employees, the 'boss' is usually 'on the job', so to speak, and hence is constantly observing, communicating, explaining, monitoring etc. etc. his/her staff and hence the control of risks is deemed adequate/sufficient. Further, in association with the RA procedures, there is still a requirement for adequate emergency procedures to be in place and this will usually be documented generically, to some extent, and then discussed and agreed by all on site prior to commencement of the job. In other words we will still expect to see this most importnat aspect has been adequately considered. In terms of location etc. this will form part of the generic approach and will usually make reference to the job sheet for an address and post code. Lastly the need to spend more time on the worksite audit discussing various aspects of H&S compliance etc. with the 'crew' will inevitably be greater in order to establish that a positive, and infomred, H&S culture prevails. This then must be evdienced by the parctices and operations observed, afterall that's the primary aim of the 'written' policy and RA. And lastly, lastly, as has been clearly pointed out on this forum, and the AA online consultation, and at several training and other AA events, this is normal 'modus operandi' for many (many) small firms who are looking/considering some form of affilaition with an industry body to get ahead of the crowd, so to speak, and we need to / must recognise this and take account of it. FINALLY this is absolutely NOT a lowering or diluting of the standards, it's about (eventualy) recognising that the "one size fits all" approach is no longer sustainable if we (the AA) wish to move the scheme forward and achieve greater industry representation and therby increased recogntioin for all concerned. SORRY...we also need to recgnise that many, mnay contractors principaly service the domestic sector when the paperwork requirements imposed really is bureacratic and unnecessary 'red tape', they're looking for a reliable contractor who can do a good job safely...and of course at the right price. BUT some unquantifiable research undertaken by myself (talking to people enquirng about engaging ACs and why they're more expensive) indicates that a client will pay a proportionate amount more for the reassurances and safegaurds involved in being 'backed up' by an industry body. IF contractors wish to service or expand into the LA/commercial sector, even if 'less than 5', and wish to be assessed as a '5 or more' firm, i.e. to include the requirement for written documentation etc. across the board, then they can still do so, albeit it will cost more and take longer (back to the 2 assessors for one day scenario) BUT they will then be registered on the CHAS database as such AND listed in AA promotional material as such so client at that level will recognise this. There, that's about it in a nutshell (a 'coconut' shell!) Hoping this to be of interest and to allay and fears/concerns. Again, 'sorry' I have had time to read al other postings at this stage BUT please, please prompt me directly if I've missed something. Many thanks all...cheers! Paul

Hi 'Paulsbrash', thanks for the post! Once I've got the go-ahead to release the details for comment I will do so. Provided I get the 'draft' approved, and you employ/engage 'less than 5', I'm sure you'll be very happy with the H&S stuff as it will be based on the standard CHAS requirements (as taht's how we now accredit H&S compliance) which is actually little more than the signing of a 'declaration' commiting the company to a positive culture of H&S compliance. That said we would need to see that clearly demonstrated on the work site audit and I would still expect some level of 'written' risk assessment to be undertaken BUT, whilst ideally it would be, this needn't necessarily be to the lengths of the AA model for instance (and I acknowledge that the firm wouldn't produce written RAs for every job, particularly routine ones in the domestic sector....music to your ears?...hope so!) Watch this space. Cheers.. Paul

Hi all, Interesting posts..thanks! I actually haven't yet seen the programme but hope to BBCi it soon. I'm sorry that despite our best efforts to raise the profile of good arboriculture yet again several people are intent on shooting our efforts down and criticising the fact we promote those companies who have paid a lot of money and invested a lot of 'blood sweat and tears' to achieve AC status...clearly we have an obligation to members, and more particularly ACs and RCs (Registered Consultants) to promote them. Again the issue of 'central government' enforced regulation has been raised...it's just NOT gonna happen guys, they're not interested, we're not 'big' enuff, 'sexy' enuff nor importnat enuff and there's not enuff of us dropping out of trees on a regular basis. Industry 'self-regulation' (I KNOW, NOT ideal...but!) is the only opportunity for the good guys to stand out from the bad in a formal way. Obviously your reputations are key to this and in that respect most of you probably don't need any help BUT you do want to stand out/be separated from the bad 'uns'. The 'Choose Your Arborist' leaflet is an AA publciation whihc seeks to inform the domestic consumer, principally, of some important questions to ask a tree surgeon and of course, indircetly, when you answer 'YES' to them all it promotes you. I mentioned last week I assessed a (very) small contactor AND he was very good indeed with a fantastic work site audit and excellent tree work and he's almost there. I recognise you are in this position to and I would really like to meet you and work with you...but 'yes' under the AA approval scheme as industry 'self-regulation', please think about it. I now there are 'mavericks' out there how will shoot me and this posting down BUT it's what I believe in and til the day I'm retired to that villa in Marbella (AKA tent in Bognor) I'll keep bangin the drum because, whilst acknowleging we've got a lot wrong to date (whihc I'm working hard to put right) I firmly beleive this approach is our best option. Tahnks for taking the time all and enjoy the day (summer today, autumn tomorrow). Cheers.. Paul PS Just read this back n my grammar (God bless her) n spelling is awful..really SORRY, but I'm out the door for a weekend with the family in Cardiff now so I'll reply Monday if that's okay...cheers!

Thanks for the comments all. After 'alerting' you to the programme I missed it. Hence I'll BBCi it soon n post back. Cheers.. Paul

Hi all, Just a(nother) 'quickie' given the previous 'much' discussion regrading risk assessments, the requirement for and 'training courses' to assist with etc. etc., and in particular 'up norf'! There's still 2 places left for Cuerden Hall (south Preston) on Thursday 6th May if anyone interested (PM me.) If not we have another course on 27th May in Shuttleworth (Beds.) Cheers.. Paul

Rucksack fulla 'Becks' eh...n the odd pair a 'smalls' in case you get caught short of course! Enjoy, hope it goes well...sorry won't be there! Paul

'One hit' = they (the Client) takes the risk of them being so shocked they dies! I'd make that absolutely crystal clear to them AND put it on the quote so you can't be to blame! I would also advise you're preferred option of phased reduction to generate new crowns lower and lower over 2,3or 4 growing seasons...people alwasy want instance results these days and perhaps worth reminding them of the obvious that it takes several years for the trees/hedrerows to grow to that height. Good luck..! Paul

Hi all, Tonight, BBC 8pm, the 'Rogue Trader' element of the 'Watchdog' programme is apparently covering a rogue tree surgeon and (fingers crossed) the AA will get a mention. Obvioulsy there's alwasy the BBCi player if you miss it. Cheers.. Paul

Hi all, Just a quick posting in response to the one below which says the AA Trade Fair, now renamed the 'Arb Show', is 26th & 27th June which it ain't so John'll be supping his 'Becks' in a very large empty field! PLEASE COME ALONG ON THE RIGHT DATES 11th & 12th JUNE..! Hope to see you there. Paul

"Cheers Rupe"...dint realise you operated as far 'Norf' as Staffs. Bl**dy impressive kit mate, and damned expensive as I understand it (cirac £2k?) n so 'business must be good' for the freelancers..! Tc mate..! Paul

Hi Steve, Sadly not, I'm delivering a training course in Exeter tomorrow and then I'm away with the family in Cardiff at the weekend (5 bl**dy quid to get in...to Wales, rip off!!!!...tee hee!) Hope to catch up at the 'Arb Show' (AKA Trade Fair). Have a good one, et al! Paul

I dunno, there's no satisfy some folk....I'm acknowledgin "small is beautiful" (as I've been advised on several previous occasions...but I knew anway) n now ur suggestin I should sneak up when they're not lookin, that's not very gentlemanly of yas! Jokin apart I see no place for 'unannounced visits' first time round (they might not have the 'posh' biccies in!), and even subsequently might be abit 'hit n miss', "yep, the gang's workin 50miles away today trimming a Leylandii hedge"...etc. etc., BUT after much feedback form the forum supporting this approach we are curently considering it (I still see it principally being the 'clients' role, and in particular at the LA level, BUT I wholly acknowledge IF we could do so effectively it would make the auditing system more robust.) Thanks (as alwasy) for yer communts! Cheers.. Paul

Hi all, Just a quick post to apologise for not being particularly active on the forum at the moment (no apology needed did I hear you say OR 'thank God that bl**dy do-gooder's not wafflin on? too much???!!..ha') Either way I am tryin to 'dip in' as much as I can BUT if there's owt I can offer a specific view on please give me a 'poke' by postin a prompt in the AA box as that comes straight through to me. Cheers all, will leave you in peace to 'cogitate' (good word wish I knew what it meant!) Paul PS Had great pleasure in witnessing some absloutley pucker treework (crown thinning and crown reduction, separately) in the Staffs area today with a (very) small company applying for AAAC status...sadly tho I forgot my didgi camera so I couldn't enjoy the moment again...n again...n again....n again!!!! Work site audit was bl**dy good too, they were using a GCRS (?...not my forte!)) riggin device whihc winches as well as lowers...was well impressive as allowed excellent control of the cut sections and avoided 'shock loading' the tree and the equipment...well done 'Mr Small Contractor', it was indeed 'beautiful!'

I think the strict answer is probably 'NO' as they will not appear on other countries 'national qualification framework', or equivalent. But, in practice, probably yes as the UK system to some extent is seent o lead the way. Now if you also held the 'European Tree Worker Certificate' that would probably bring more credibility to your NPTCs. Cheers.. 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