AA Teccie (Paul)

Yup, to be honest I'm not entirely 'au fait' with the Waste Transfer requiremenst but my understanding is that the Para.21 exemption, involving the 'storage' of woodchip, is a means of avoiding the need to register as a wastre transfer centre requiring a licence. Hence my point that if they allow this then surely that goes some way to acknowledging wood chip isn't really waste but a usuable product.

Just thought of an interesting paradox (don't know if that's the right word, prob not, but like the sound of it) here. That is, if the EA are happy for us to self-declare an exemption for the requirement for a Waste Transfer Licence, i.e. a para. 21 exemption, with regard to storage of woodchip then surely that's an acknowledgement that provider the 'storer' can demonstare they are recycling/re-using the product it is NOT waste....next they view it as a commodity and tax it! Still, just banging ideas around that may support our case when I make it to EA. Cheers.. Paul

Previously produced a generic risk assessment for working with London Plane after visiting a contractor working in London and seeing the effects for the poor guy on the chipper and just about everyone else who was walking down 'The Mall' after visiting Lizzie's place....horrible stuff and left me thinking are these trees really the 'lungs of the city' coz on that day they were the 'lung KILLERS of the city'...not my favourite tree by any means! So, a couple of things: 1. Whereever possible work on them when dormant, preferably, or later in Summer when problem isn't as bad. 2. If not poss. then please ensure any 'dust mask' used are appropriate type to the fine hair dust hazard AND they fit well. I have also seen contractors who are sensitised to LP hairs wearing respirators when chipping. Obvioulsy if work can be done during damp / wet weather, provided it's not too wet to climb (when's that in UK?), that will help too. Lastly I was not aware the susbtance was carcogenic which puts a whole new perespective on things...be careful! Paul

Excellent, thanks for bringing it here where I can monitor it more closely. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT if we can keep comments brief (as poss) and stay on topic I will let them run for a little while and then propose a way forward. Cheers all, have a great weeknd! Paul

ALL, many apologies. I'm afraid I'm a bit of the 'chocolate fireguard' syndrome and thanks to '18 Stoner' for the prompt, albeit it came through a 'PM' whihc is fine but relies on me coming on line and I'm just stupidly busy at the moment (NOT an excuse, but a very genuine explanation!) Next time if you can either 'poke' me via the AA box, which then comes stright into my AA email in-box, or directly [email protected], I'll get back to you quicker...apologies again! I've not got time to read all the posts here but I think it's the issue I raised about contacting the EA and asking them to review their position statement on 'virgin timber', which is exempted to the WCL requirement, to extend this to include 'clean' green woodchip...correct? (I know there's also been talk about haulage and vehicles etc. and that's a potential minefield I'm keen to avoid if at all poss.) Anyway I'm afraid I've done nothing further at this stage but I guess we first need confirmation of excatly what we want, I know this is not to have to purchase a WCL but we need to have a clear justification and reason why, and then how best to present this...electronic peteition, Face book (???...how old are we?, not a clue I'm afraid). I'm happy to front this AND add the AA weight to it but I have to be quite honest with you and say I simply cannot progress this at the moment without assistance. Would anyone, 'in the know', be perpared to get involved with the collating of opinions/petittions etc. to help to move it forward?...PLEASE! I can commit some time to put the existing situation/scenario picture togther and present the justification for change but don't have the time/not sure how best to harness/present the support...please work with me on this one as 'the industry'...thanks! Paul PS I know this sounds a bit pathetic (on my part) but is there anyway of transferring this thread to the AA box, so it keeps banging on my door, OR to start 'afresh' in there? It's just that I'm SH*T at finding my way back to particular threads which are importnat.

Perhaps I'm naive, and un realistic, but I find it quite staggering to hear news like this in this day, age and current H&S driven climate..!'madness'!!! Sincere condolences to the family left behind. Paul

Hi all, Sorry for 'bangin the drum' again but the posting title is worrying me like hell as the Trade Fair/ Arb Show is the 11th & 12th June...NOT 26 & 27th! Cheers n looking forwrad to meeting you there. Paul

Hi Steve(?), Strictly speaking the role of establishing a soil's heave potential is that of a (soils) structural engineer but, generally speaking, the higher the plasticty index meausrement the greater the shrinkage potential and therefore, presumably the greater the heave potential. Other factors to consider are that heave damage is significantly less than subsidence damage, i.e. it occurs less frequently, and it usually only occurs where the tree(s) significantly pre-date the building, hence they are founded on existing dehydrated soils / ground. Further if the properties are relatively new build then they should have been constructed in such a way to take account of eventual tree removal. Nonetheless if they are under a 10yr NHBC gaurantee I guess sooner rather than later might be the way to go....if indeed a risk to the property prevails. Hoping thsi to be of help. Cheers.. Paul

Hi Sean, taking it your new to the industry and keen to learn more as your CS units probably wouldn't equip you adequately to deal with this situation. Obviously 'Hamadryad' has given some very good advice based on his experience and doubtless underlying knowledge form reading / researching. I, following Shigo's lead, would suggest avoiding periods of high stored energy use, including now with 'leaf burst in Spring', and that, ideally, you phase the works, i.e. do it over 2-3 years grwoing seasons. As your unlikley to get the client to agree to this, but gve it a go explaining how long it's taken the tree to gte to this size and a 'one hit' solution is not the best approach, you should inform them that such drastic action can lead to 'physiological shock', even when undertaken outside of prolonged dry periods, and the tree may not respond...but all will probably be okay (tis a bit of a posterior covering exercise...and include mention of it on yer quote so no argument...they knew, they took the risk..to save a few quid!) Good luck.. 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