AA Teccie (Paul)

Neither did the EA inspectors at the site visit, it was only subsequently when they did further investigations n research that they discovered this. Summat to be mindful of for the future though as my prediction is that many more HCs will be need to be removed given the current 'combined plague' they're sufferin. Cheers.. Paul

Move his motors coz them 'PIG..EONS' won't stop sh*tting in my experience AND probably all year round. Jokin apart it is a major problem and previously I had some lovely TPO'd Pine trees, retained ideally too close to the house, and the little blighters covered their patio area regularly AND often whilst they were cleaning it....just to add insult to injury. It actually grieved me to 'refuse' consent as I was wholly sympathetic to their predicament and (off teh record) advised them to appeal it...but they didn't n just soldiered on. I don't think there's any real solution here, I guess droppin a small-gauge (very) large net from a helicopter over the tree is getting into the realms of sublime n ridiculous BUT may be the only solution. DON'T do it now tho as then little 'pidge' won't be able to get to his nest n Mr Natural England will get upset. Cheers.. Paul

As always apologies if this is 'grannies, eggs n sucks'! I've just been speaking with a contractor who advised me he was prosecuted by the EA for allowing woodchips from a HC to get into an adjacent watercourse/stream. He further advised that the fine (thankfully only £250.00) was because the HC woodchips are toxic in watercourses, causing a 'blueing' of the water surface as he described it and it can kill fish, and it was for this rather than allowing the chip to enter the stream he was prosecuted. As you may be aware if you are storing woodchip at your premises it should not contaminate any nearby watercourses and somewhere on their website I (think) I read it should be at least 10m away. Also if it is your land, or you are the tenant (I think) then you should have a Para. 21 exemption certificate which is basically a self-declaration of woodchip storage in accordnace with the generic conditions imposed (thankfully it's a very straight forward process AND no fee involved....YES 'NO FEE'!!!) Cheers all.. Paul

Hi Jeremy, I stand to be corrected (as always....and usually some 'smart a*se' on here usually does...Hama? Mestereh? Rupe? Ed. Arb?...n gudonya's for that..ha!) but my understanding is that the HND has largely been superceded by the Foundation Degree in Arb (FdSc Arb), which is at the same level..i.e. 5 (wished I had one!), and it would appear that Myerscough is leading the way in delivering this on-line. A couple of weeks ago I was with Andy Hirons at Myerscough and he should me some of the on-line stuff, have to say I was (very) impressed by what I saw n he's a really good bloke! The other options, as advised, are the RFS Cert Arb (level 2 and largely serves to compliment the practical skills accreditted through the NPTCs etc.) and Tech Cert Arb (currently level 3 BUT rumours of advancing it to level 4...don't quote me!) a very good and very well recognised qual. (AND I'm NOT saying that coz it's the AA Tech Cert because we actually have very little to do with it directly these days, ABC Awards administer it (I can explain why if anyone wants me to...yawn, yawn, yawn) and hence it's not referred to as such. This qual. is a very useful foundation to move into a tree advisory/consultancy role in 'later years' if you envisage your career moving that way...similarly the FdSc Arb would equally do so, the RFS Cert Arb, whilst a good qual, would be of limited value here. Hoping this to be of (some) help. Cheers...n good luck to ya! Paul

Dave, Many thanks for clarifying that, I missed the reference to 'business start up' in the course information which is, as you say, where the level 3 comes in. However I'm not sure it would be formally recognised as a level 3 arboricultural qualification 'perse' by a prospective employer looking for such and, similarly, we would be unlikely to recognise it as a level 3 qual. to support a 'Technician Member' application. Hence it would appear to have some limitations. Cheers.. Paul

Hi High Scale, Re- 2 load bearing anchor points = all the time, strictly speaking, but definatley when using a chainsaw in the tree. After saying that I acknowledge most of the industry doesn't use two LB anchor points at all times, and that not many accidents are caused to professionals by anchor point failure, BUT a rope access interpretation of the W@H Regs requires this. Don't worry, help is at hand in that the AA has a very recently appointed working group assembled (inc. HSE) and this is one of the points we will endeavour to address, along with several related others, as we move forward so carry on as you are but just be sure to double-check, visually (binos) and by two-person loading at ground level, if you have any concerns. Cheers.. Paul

The potential probelm with using the 'standard application' form, whihc is often preferred by the LPA, is that whoever registers it often sets a standard TPO 8 week determination date rather than 6 weeks for Conservation Area. If they're switched on and it works then great if not maybe better to do them in writing...dunno!

Daniel, apologies...this industry n bl**dy abbreviations/acronyms eh...n I'm worse than anybody. Skyhuck has already explained what they mean (thanks!) but the relevance is that it's the LPA (Local Plannning Authority) that determine TPO apps/CA nots (theer I go again but I'll guess you've got those) which is not necessarily the LA (Local Authority) altho more often than not they are one and the same. The main area this differs in in the National Parks, i.e New Forest/Dartmoor etc., where they are also the LPA determining planning matters within the Parks, including TPOs etc., even where a LA boundary encroaches there's...WHAT???!!! Reet, try this (I'M CONFUSED NOW!)...I worked for Teignbridge District Council previously, our district boundary encroached into Dartmoor National Park, we determined TPO apps etc. upto the boundary and they took over from there on in. There are also one or two other anomalies in the country too but this is the main one. BOTTOM line if you're working in a National Park then they are the LPA. I'll leave it at that eh...sorry all! Paul

Hi there, just had a quick look at this website and the combined NPTC units offered are all at level 2, according to the NPTC website, and not level 3 (I think the LOLER 'thorough examination' course is the only level 3 one...which is not included in the combined course.) I think 'Western' is more looking for an acedemic course so I'd follow 'Hamadryads' lead to the FdSc Arb or Tech Cert Arb...or PD Arb. Cheers.. Paul

Hi all, The ISA Certified Arborist sits in the current (but defunct) NQF (National Qualifications Framework...being change to the Qualifications and Credits Framework....don't ask...ME!) at 'level 2', as does RFS Cert. Arb. & City & Guilds Arb, i.e. it's generally recognised as a craftsman qualification. The Tech Cert Arb, as with ND Arb, is currently level 3. However there are those who believe, in part because of the strict CPD/CEU requirement, that it should be 'higher' than level 2, or at least unofficially recognised as such in the eyes of an employer. I previously studied the 'study guide', as a working arborist (YES I did once work..properly) and found it a very useful process although I never did the exams...can't remember why tho (that'll be the dementia again!) To be quite honest Hamadryad I'm not sure as to how much benefit this qual will be for you given your desire to enter the world of arb consultancy...stick to your FdSc Arb I'd say (NOT to undermine the ISA Cert Arb, it's a great qual for the progressive arborist, but a case of "horse for courses" I reckon n this one probably won't go the distance for you.) Cheers.. Paul

Lots of good advice so far which is great. A couple of things to add, for info. 1. IF the LPA isn't happy with the 'notified' works, AND they can agree with you an acceptable alternative, they can request you formally withdraw the existing Sect. 211 (the relevant section of the 1990 Town & Country Planning Act) notification and resubmit a revised one. As a previous LPA TO I used this as an alternative to TPOing mediocre trees or where the tree wasn't really 'under threat' and hence it wasn't really considered 'expedient' to make a TPO (I believe at least one, and maybe more, Ombudsman appeals have been upheld on this basis.) 2. I'm pretty sure (but stand to be corrected) that, although you can and it's maybe helpful to the LPA, you don't have to use standard form for this purpose, i..e Sect.211 Notice. Obviously though you still need to submit all the relevant information to allow them to arrive at a decision. Finally, whilst it may be correct, I would check before proceeding with the proposed works under an exemption as I'm not sure it actually would be unless it was the Electricty Supply Act...or similar. Cheers.. Paul PS Hope everyone had a good Easter!

N don't foget the ladders...even quicker than 'spikes' over the first 7-8m, getting the groundie to position them n foot them ready for a quick(ish) ascent. Then you can spike on your 'spare set' in the dedicated rescue kit OR make sure you have your own set available as too often on AC assmts., as we require to see a dismantling op, the climber often (sometimes) is using the only available set...W@H is all about forward planning and organisition and this, often combined with the ladders being lashed to the top of the vehicle which is parked at the front of the house and you're working at the bottom of the rear garden = FAIL. Okay the reality may be that 'self rescue' on the adrenilin rush is the most common / effective means of getting down to 'Mother Earth' BUT you have to plan for that occasion when the climber (your colleague and often 'best mate') might not be able to and relies on you for help. Oh yeah, n if you do leave the 'rescue kit' in the locked wagon for security..... PLEASE make sure you, or someone on the ground, has the key!!!! Cheers all.. Paul

Hi, I've always understood 'Daldinia concentrica' (great words, not as good as Meta-sequoia glypto-stroboides tho!) to be principally saprophytic, i.e. living on deadwood, but once very established it can act parasitically, i.e. attack living wood, but only weakly so. I usually treat it as an indicator of underlying decayed wood, particularly on Ash, which is useful as the bark often appears in tact and unaffected. Whether it could be an early sign of Inonotus hispidus activity I don't know but the two things often appear together...could be complete coincidence tho...dunno! There another definitive answer (NOT!) from the AA Teccie...any more questions want unanswering?! Cheers.. Paul

Santacruz...I would suggest/advise that NPTC units ARE a legal requirement under the PUWER (Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regs 1998) Reg 9 'Training' of the ACOP (Approved Code of Practice) which states: 192 Portable hand-held chainsaws are dangerous machines which need to be handled with the greatest care. Everyone who uses a chainsaw at work for whatever task must have received adequate training under this regulation. The training should cover: (a) dangers arising from the chainsaw itself; (b) dangers arising from the task for which the chainsaw is to be used; and © the precautions to control these dangers, including relevant legal requirements. 193 Over and above this, due to the significant risks involved, if a chainsaw is to be used on or in a tree, the operator will be expected to hold a certificate of competence or national competence award relevant to the work they undertake. Further, I would hope, the training & assessment associated with the particular units is 'useful' to you as the skilled operator and not just viewed as an 'ar*e coverer' for your employer...although obviously they do fulfil that purpose to. You're right tho no 'Mr Plod' (actually Mr HSE) is gonna lock you up for not having the relevant 'tickets' BUT in the event of an accident/incident it certainly won't help your case if you don't have them. Cheers.. Paul

Done a bit of research on this, namely the dictionary definition: semi•skilled (-skild′) adjective 1. partly skilled 2. of or doing manual work that requires only limited training A skilled worker is any worker who has some special skill, knowledge, or (usually acquired) ability in his work. A skilled worker may have attended a college, university or technical school. Or, a skilled worker may have learned his skills on the job. And then I cheked out the Business Link and ACAS websites for further clarification but got nowhere really so I rang ACAS........................................................n after 10mins of waiting I kinda wished I hadn't as this old boy rambled on and on and on and on (Okay, I know, ME in years to come) but told me nothing really. Wished he's just have said sorry there's no strict definition in an employment context, it's open to intepretation. One thing, yes only 'one', he did say that may be of use is to compare your role and grading with that of your peers, and he pointed out this hold be in the same sectors, i.e. private or publci service etc., and use that to suport your case. Sorry I tried...but failed, boo hoo! Cheers.. Paul

Just re-reading this it struck me that if the CS39 you attained did not include the cutting of vertical sections, as included in the most recent update, then you may wish to consider attainment of CS41 which will/should serve to both address this 'shortfall'(?) AND cover you for dismnatling & rigging practices. As a matter of interest we do insist on this (CS41) for AC status BUT also we need to see a (very) 'competent & proficient' operation up aloft and down below, i.e. both ends of the system. The CS41 would be relevant to the climber not the ground 'rigger', but both must be competent. Lastly CS40 (Pruning) is not insisted upon/mandatory BUT often recommended where pruning standards observed are not compliant with industry good practice. Cheers.. Paul

Hi all, I have sought some clarifications on this topic from my 'good' colleague Simon Richmond (formerly of Lantra Awards) who is better placed than I am to do so and which may be of interest...thank you Simon. Hi Paul Having looked through the thread I think they’ve just about covered it! Key points are: • NPTC CS units provide evidence that an operator has demonstrated basic knowledge and skill in that subject. • They were originally intended to provide independent, verified evidence of ‘adequate training’ as required under HASAWA. • They have always been ‘entry level’ competence certificates and do not provide evidence of ‘proficiency’; this can only come after supervised practice and experience carrying out the task in a wide range of circumstances. Evidence of such experience, and any subsequent updating or refresher training, would be an integral part of any defence to support claims of ‘industrial competence’. • CS 39 was intended to assess the very basic skills of how to start and operate a saw (either top or rear handled) from a rope and harness. The cuts required in the original assessment were designed to ensure the operator could position themselves safely to make simple, accurate step and sink cuts, including hand held sections, and ‘manage the saw in the tree’. • The latest version now also includes vertical sections but is not intended to address any dismantling techniques. • Those who hold CS39 from before the recent change will only be considered competent to carry out the tasks that they were assessed in. • Because there is a specific unit that deals with dismantling (CS41), CS39 would not cover operators to carry out this work. Hope that’s helpful... Simon

It's a fair point, trouble is the 'stats' just aren't available BUT both anecdotally and looking around my local region (and others have concurred here) the 'lions share' of arb companies are 'small', i.e. less than 5, and yes many are one or two. Trouble is, in terms of moving the AA scheme forward, I don't beleive we can have any distinction between companies / firms having less than 5, in a sense it's academic...what's important IMO is recognising the 'less than 5s', whihc we don't really do currently, and addressing this. Hope I've not missed your point? Cheers.. Paul

Gibbon, that's a bit impolite if you don't mind me saying, albeit probably entirely true, but please don't publicise the fact I am a 'GOON' (ha, thanks for the laff...it was a laff right???..ha!) Just to clarify, for everyone, the 2 day assessment 'variation' is offered for very small companies where the AC named manager is also the 'receptionist, office manager, H&S bod, surveyor, fitter/mender, main climber...oh and 'brusherupper'...and chief team maker too! Meaninig the logistics of pulling all elements of the assessment together in one day are nigh on impossible so we spent two separate days, one assessor on each day, to accomodate this. (Hopefully that's right 'Gibbon' as I don't know how you are?) However, 'yes' your (very good) point about ensuring the 'assessment' depth and duration is proportionate to the size of the company, i.e. bigger 'arb' companies (for easy reckonin say more than 10-12 staff, or running 3 or more gangs) will also form part of the considerations. I don't propose to 'water down' the standards at all, AND i) the 'active worksite audit' (dismantle with rigging etc.) + ii) the 'completed works audit (planting, crown reduction & crown thinning) will be 'common' throughout. What I anticipate will change is the depth of documentray evidence required from smaller companies, and therefore existing small ACs at re-assessment (UNLESS they wish to maintain their larger company, i.e. '5 or more staff, if that is beneficila to them) will be (far) less and in-line with, for instance, HSE & CHAS requirements. As an existing AC please give me a call if your concerned and I haven't explained things very well. Obviously anyone else can ring me at any stage with any concerns/confusions. Cheers.. Paul

I too was/am greatly saddened to learn of the loss of one of our colleagues and I can't start to imagine how his family must feel and be coping, or not as the case may be....not that I'm a beleiver really but 'God bless them all' are my sentiments! At some stage, when the hurt has lessened, it may be useful to all, and all's families and loved ones, if there are any lessens to be learned from this tragic incident or 'reminders' of specific things we must not overlook in our every day work. But for now 'thoughts n condolences'! Paul

Hi Hamadryad 'et al', apologies I haven't read the above posts in detail as I'm a bit 'under the cosh' at the moment but here's a few thoughts (not sure they'll meet Rupe's definition of controversial(?) tho...bl**dy boffin!) - MEWPs 'v' climber is a good one already mentioned - Work positioning requirement for 2 'load bearing' anchor points, i.e. W@H Regs. (still not fully resolved although most don't!) - Refresher/update training and requirement to updates old NPTC units 20,21 & 22, i.e. 'yes', refsreer training is required BUT 'new(er)' NPTCs??? - Climbing helmets...do we really need them? - Manual Handling assessments (already mentioned) are they appropriate for our industry - a little unrelated but 'waste carriers licence'...should we have to have them? Sorry, just quick thoughts as I press on...good luck! Paul

All, thank you for your comments and I'm actually really encouraged that they are 'reasoned' and 'constructive' be it 'pro' or 'anti'(?) AC...which is great! I think the time has come for me, or rather the AA, to "put its money where its mouth is", so to speak, and implement the changes I have suggested/proposed, much of which revolves around making the scheme (much) more accessible, and appealing, to smaller contractors such that it is worthwhile and represents 'value for money', that I beleive is the key! So where do we/I go from here, well the balls already started to roll in that I discussed in detail my ideas/thoughts/proposals with Nick (Eden, AA Director) yesterday and he was generally supportive. I now need to formulate a report to go before the Association's Professional Committee, who are, in effect, the 'governinig body' for the AAAC scheme with pertinent recommendations are seek their support. Thereafter AA protocol dictates is shold go to the Board of Trustees for ratification ('rubber stamping') and then we can really set the ball rolling. (I acknowledge you may be frustrated reading this and thinking "what a bl**dy long winded process" and "bureacracy gone mad" BUT the AA is a democratic organisation and due process, which is designed to represent the interest of and protect all, has to be followed.) I anticipate the next stage will be a formal consultation exercise with existing AAACs as 'shareholders', in effect, then review, amend n launch (realistcially this will be 1st Jan. 2011....but that give you all enough time to get all those essential 'mountains of paperwork' in place right?...tee hee...ONLY JOKING!!!) Thanks again 'EVERYBODY' for participating in this and any and all other related threads, your feedback/comments (positive and negative) have really been valuable....tis all just down to me now to deliver...aghhhhh!!!! Cheers all.. Paul

Hi 'Shaw', Not sure about 'means testing' the contractors, doubtless they'd all clear out their accounts fo rthe day...ha! BUT, yes absolutely, we are reviewing the scheme cost to ensure they are proportionate and appropriate dependent upon the size o fthe company and, for the larger companies, turn over. Watch this space...but not just yet! Cheers.. Paul

Hamadryad, you need to have faith and confidence in yourself n your abilities n stop dragging yourself down. Judging by the content of your posts you're clearly ahead of the game when it comes down to arb technical stuff, I've been most impressed (n not just saying that to make you feel better...but if it does 'good'!, I'm saying it coz that's what I think.) Bits of paper are important, to a degree (ha!., forgive the pun!), and thanks to the likes of Myerscough in particular there are many more of them around these days and hence employers expect more BUT, not underminingthe degrees at all, and I sincerely wish I had one, any good employer 'worth their salt' will be looking for the 'knowledge' and not the piece of paper! Seems to me you're sufferin a lack of confidence in your own (very real) abilities and, unfortunately, you may be displaying that through your body language to prospective employers. Be proud of your knowledge and considerable experience, 'head up high' n go for it!!! Take care.. Paul PS If you've already started the FdSc I'd sweat it out ofr the first year at least and then you may be eligible to come away with a 'Foundation Certificate' (level 4) which I've just had sight of for the first time....n very nice too!

'Shaw', no worries at all, 'rant away' if that's what's needed...I've had much worse on here to date but take it all on the chin as most is done so 'constructively' n that's absolutely fine! Coincidentally we are plannnig to review and revise the scheme this year, in fact we're kinda doing so now, but feedback from 'Arbtalk' has lareday chnaged my views on ceratin things and emphasised further needs on others...it's been 'spot on'! You're absolutely right about the scheme needing to be more financially appealling (particularly for the smaller firms), both in terms of assessment fees AND annual subs and this is something I'm looking very hard at and am positive we can do something good. It also needs to have greater financial appeal in that it allows access to more LA work and this, often referred to as a 'chicken n egg' scenario, will self perpetuate I beleive, i.e. the more ACs = the more recognition = more work = AC is 'the norm'. Those are my aspirations at this stage. Keep the thoughts coming... Cheers.. Paul