AA Teccie (Paul)

'Shaw', your drive and positiveness(?) is refreshing...thank you. IF the HSE were to officially 'endorse' the scheme then that would carry weight and enough to approach the LA insurers perhaps, but currently they don't (although they do 'recognise' the scheme as an industry benchmark for arb contracting...hence we deliver on their SHAD workshops.) Many / most companies are fulfilling their 'obligations' I would suggest and undertaking safe working practices and producing good quality work etc. BUT not necessarily documenting how and having written policies and procedures to underpin this...hence the 'sticking point' to date and particularly for smaller firms (THIS is a 'must' for us, the AA, to address!) Cheers.. Paul

Hi 'Shaw', thanks for your post! You're right, more ACs will increase awareness and then hopefully the scheme will self-perpetuate, however we first need to ensure the scheme is appropriate to companies of all sizes AND that it has 'value' and represents good value for money. We are currently 'lobbying' LAs, albeit indirectly via the HSE Engaging Arboricultural Contractors SHAD (Safety and Health Awareness Day), and I am currently trying a more direct approach via regional tree officer group meetings (with very variable degrees of success.) However what I would like to do is to run a 'lower key' mini-AA SHAD as a roadshow (NO COMMENTS ABOUT 'CIRCUS n CLOWNS' PLEASE!) around the country to further promote the scheme, not least as we now dual award with CHAS (Contractors Health And Safety assessment scheme, see http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/general-chat/www.chas.gov.uk)...BUT we need more resources available to do this effectively = we need more ACs, a "chicken n egg" scenario! With regard to lobbying LA insurers I'm not quite sure how we would go about this but I would be concerned this may be viewed as a little 'under-handed' in forcing their arm, so to speak. Increasingly LAs are moving away from their own approved list, perhaps recognising the potential liabilities this might bring, and referring enquirers to other lists, i.e. AAAC scheme, but they often still engage none ACs on their own tree works...interesting. Cheers.. Paul

Trees Are Good - Tree Care Information Leaflets available to the Public Above are 2 starting points, I did look for a NPTC assessemnt schedule but couldn't see one, doubtless others will make good suggestions too! Common problem areas are tree planted too deeply, backfill not consolidated adequately and support systems ineffective or damaging to tree. Cheers.. Paul

Hi 'Bareroots', Great post, great question....but I don't have a definitive answer. Perhaps, simplistically ('MY' middle name), it means putting the tree first, i.e treating the tree as the client, and replacemnet planting on at least a 'one for one' basis. Interestingly(?), 2 years ago we made tree planting a 'compulsary' element of the AC completed works operations, which has been a bit of an 'eye opener' for a seemingly simple skill (that's another story) BUT, primarily, the reason we did this was because we were very mindful of the fact that for another part of the assessment, the 'active worksite', we require to see a tree being removed (usually) and that we had a responsibility to try and counter/compensate for this AND encourage arb contractors to undertake tree planting and active promote this to their clients. I sincerly hope it works. Further, in terms of prunig trees, my view would be taht 'ethical' arb actively promotes the "less is more" and "little but often" approach to tree work BUT how realistic this as I dunno....probably not greatly so! One contractor who recently became AC was extremely keen on the concept of ethical arb and, to a large extent, his justification of this was undertaking crown thinning operations instead of heavy reductions/'topping' etc. Great thread and one I'll watch with interest. Cheers.. Paul

Excellent turn of phrase "arsing", and of course wholly intentionally included for our amusement late at night (and early morning in my case)...well done (ha!) I would suggest avoiding use of the word 'waste', as others have indicated, and using a phrase along the lines of "ALL timber and arisings to be removed from site, unless agreed otherwise beforehand, and recycled responsibly and the site to be left clean, tidy and safe"...or words to that effect. BUT, importantly, I would include something in your 'terms and conditions' about any timber value has been taken into account in the price quoted and on acceptance of the contract ownership of such transfers to "the contractor" (YOU!) This, hopefully, avoids a claim to the timber by the tree owner once they see it on the deck and decide they could generate a bit of cash from the local timber merchant/log man. Also I would consider adding something else here to the effect of "whilst all reasonable efforts will be made to remove all 'arisings', woodchip, sawdust, twigs, leaves etc., from the site the nature of these being so small and scattered and the adjacent terrain, i.e. grass, shrub/flower beds, gravel drives/footpaths etc, dictates this is not always possible. Further weather conditions, i.e. rain, snow, wind etc., can hinder the effectivesness of the site clean up." Something else on my list is to produce a standard set of 'Ts & Cs' for arb contracting. Hope this is useful (apologies if not!) Cheers.. Paul

Hi all, I have seen 'Rigi..' at the base of London Plane on the edge of the 'Serpentine' in Hyde Park pointed out by Mike Turner, Royal Parks Arb Officer. Paul

Sounds like he needs one of your business cards casually slipping into his hand. Live n learn eh?!...oh yeah "n each to their own"...hope he realises that now!

Flip...'head scratchin time'. Kinda, but it can be utilised for 'storage', i.e. starches, which the tree can call on if needed. Paul PS Can't you ask summat sensible like H&S Policies n Risk Assessments etc., I can give you loads of useless information then?....forget this biology nonesense stuff which is really important n what it's all about really!

Hi 'Hamadryad', I guess it's down to the individual to some extent as to what they want/expect from 'individual accreditation'. In your particular case you see 'Fellowship' status as the goal, n "gudon'ya for that!", but others may think differently, be it NPTCs / quals. / membership grades / external awards, i.e. CHAS, AAAC, ISO, the range is very varied and there's summat for all. Perhaps that's another reason why industry is so good to work in as it provides opportunities for all..! All the best.. Paul

Whilst the post is regarding 'wounds' the other important factor to be aware of here is the affects those actions would have on the tree as a structure, i.e. the 'axiom of uniform stress' and potentially raising the lever arm effect on the main stem. If the tree's relatively young with bundles of energy it may rapidly lay down reaction wood and all will be okay, but usually young(er) trees don't have big branches to be removed. Forget the 'Arborex' approach too, not least coz it don't work and it's 'G*d damned awful stuff' n wrecks your gear (said from past experience, and better to keep it there...IN THE PAST!) Paul PS The draft' 3998 talks about, ideally, not creating wounds greater than 400mm dia. (presumably on a mature specimen) and if necessary considering Rupe's approach.

My view would be that the appointing client, even at 'Mrs Miggins' level (and I would suggest the church is probably somewhere above that) needs to satisfy themselves, as much as they reasonably can, that the contractor they've selected is 'up to the job' and has appropriate insurances. Obviously builders don't normally do treework (or worryingly do they?!) so the client would presumably ask the question "can you?", if the answer is 'yes', perhaps ask "how?" and if convinced then they can probably reasonably assume the contractors PL insurance covers those operations. Re-tickets, they've probably got diggers, mini-diggers, larger diggers, dump truck, cement mixer..."we've go the lot luv!" All a bit 'risque' IMO tho! Paul

Reet, Paul 'Sad Git Policy Reading NEBOSH Nurd' here...and 'yes' I do read H&S Policies, Method Satements and Risk Assessments AND Insurance Policies just to top it off...there, beat that you people with lives! I often challenge policies during AC assessments, more particularly now we award CHAS as well, not to be awkard or 'a jobs worth' but because it does matter and done properly it can help you better manage H&S and reduce accident likelihoods and outcomes etc. In so doing (challenging policies) I often get the response well no-one else have ever challenged it in the last 10 years of sending it 'here there and everywhere'...that's because that is a 'jobs worth' asking for it to tick another box on their list, and provided its curent, dated and signed you're sorted! Wouldn't be the first time ever taht I've read alot about asbestos, lead poisoning, scaffold configurations and COSHH assessments for paints and thinners etc. = just be careful who you're paying £850 to produce your policy and make sure they understand your industry and what you do! Jokin apart, for what it worth, we produce a 'H&S Package' (£45+p&p) which contains 'the bones' for a H&S Policy, amongst lots of other good stuff (honest!) Failing that the HSE have a simple policy document at http://www.hse.gov.uk/business/policy-statement.pdf whihc is appropraiet for smaller businesses and there's also a combined Risk Assessment & Policy template at HSE to launch Risk Assessment and Policy Template, 1 September 2009 – Partnership news which may suffice for the office element of the business, i.e.low risk, but unlikley to be deemed suitable and appropriate for the 'sharp end' of what we do. There, bet you're gald I contributed now....NOT (sorweee!!!) Cheers all.. Paul

Lets hope so Targettrees, and to everyone's benefit! Cheers.. Paul

Hi Rob, That's absoultely what I'm aiming for! If, after becoming accredited, the firm wishes to grow to take on bigger contracts (whihc often happens AND which, IMO, is often why standards slip) then obviously at their reassessment this will be disclosed and they will have more to demonstrate. BUT, importantly (AND a point we've missed previously), those who believe "small is beautiful" (AND it often is) can stay so and still not have to produce the 'War n Peace' paperwork...simple (so why did I not see it previously?...I know, I know!!!!) Cheers.. Paul 'Blu-Ray' Smith

Hiya Bob, thanks for the post. We managed both as I mentioned, one guy revelled in it the other cut loose at lunch sadly (I have spoken since an we came to an acceptable solution for him)...just reminds me of the first PTI (Professional Tree Inspection) course we ran, people came along to that expecting to learn how to survey/inspect trees and the course didn't address their needs BUT absolutely did address others (thankfully the majority!) The course info is at http://www.trees.org.uk/downloads/TR_AK_course_info-041209.pdf and as you'll see it's an awful lot to get through in a day BUT remember it is a 'signpost' course and a 'whistle stop tour' of the topic areas. Cheers.. Paul

Hi Dave, I hope you're very soon 'HAPPYDaveSmith' as it sound slike you've got all the required character attributes to work well in this industry. I'm sure you don't need me to say BUT DON'T GIVE UP and best of luck! Paul

Hi all, Just a bit (?) of feedback on an inaugural training event we ran last week titled 'Arb Knowledge' which was delivered at Stoneleigh (NAC) by Steve Coombes, external AA trainer, who developed the course in conjunction with Simon Richmond (AA Training Manager) and wrote the (very extensive) associated workbook. The course, labelled as a 'SIGNPOST COURSE', was borne from previous discussions between Steve, myself and others regarding the sometimes lacking arb knowledge required for AC status (remember this is not only about understanding what you are doing to trees, the effects and outcomes etc. but being able to impart that/explain it to the client AND in a way they can understand) and how we could start to address this. This was also coupled by many discussions with firms interested in the approval but concerned their knowledge wasn't 'up-to-the-job' and wanting to know to what extent / level we expected them to be. We would reply by saying a level of knowledge commensurate with a level 3 arb qual, i.e. ND Arb/Tech Cert Arb, BUT without having to actually hold the qual. AND, even if you had, we would still question. This is fine but if you haven't done a 'level 3' then what can you refer to?...hence the course! So how was it? Well, over all, and taking into account a few teething problems and refinements required to the workbooks n associated powerpoint, pretty damn good I think BUT it was an awful lot to cram into a one day course and that's something we're looking at. Sadly one chap was a bit overwhelmed having come 'straight off the tools', so to speak, and without a level 2 qual., i.e. NC Arb / RFS Cert Arb / ISA Cert Arbor, and with very little previous reading of the subject areas, whereas another said it was excellent...just what he needed to 'test' his knowledge levels which were fine in most areas BUT in one or two where he thought he was fine he's a little more to do. The 'signposting' associated with course needs refining too in terms of further direction, i.e. further courses of study (Tech Cert, FdSc, Dip Arb) OR other learning opportunities (poss. further workshops covering topic areas introduced on the course in more detail...dunno?!) for those who don't wish to, can't commit to, or can't afford a full educational course. There are lots of further reading/references referred to in the workbook. IF anyone is interested I would reiterate it is designed as a 'SIGNPOST' course, i.e. it won't give all the answers (there simply isn't time), but it will give you pointers to where, if anywhere, you need to 'up' your knowledge level. With regard to the development of further workshops to compliment/supplement the course...watch this space. Cheers all.. Paul PS Albeit from a specifc need, as we saw it, does the industry need this, is it beneficial/helpful?...any/ALL thoughts welcomed!

Hi 'Scott995', Principally there are 2 main types of insurance you need to consider: 1. Employers Liability (EL) - compulsary, i.e. legally required, if you are employing people (and probably if you should be but choose to engage a freelance 'groundsman' on a regular basis instead.) Essentialy this is required to cover a pay-out to an employee injured whilst working for you. Usually £5million min. but take advice. 2. Public Liability (PL) and usually include 'Products Liability' too - optional BUT strongly recommended and indeed some contracts require it. This is in case, despite your best efforts, the 'proverbial hits the fan' and summat goes wrong with harm or damage being caused. Usually £2million min. but again take advice and ensure adequate cover. There is also Professional Indemnity (PI) insurance available but this is usually the domain of the tree advisors / tree consultants and covers them for giving duff advice, kinda, so prob don't need to worry too much at this stage. The other thing is personal accident cover and motor insurance and......aghhh! Good luck with your new venture! Cheers.. Paul

Hi 'MattyF', cheers for the post! Exactly, the 'horse for courses' approach I mentioned early has to be the way forward where both the financial and resource requirements would be much less than currently (which operates on the HSEs '5 or more employees' basis regardless of the size of the firm.) And 'yes', I wholly acknowledge 'sub-standard' work does occur, hopefully 'the minority', and we need to work harder to address this. That said the more there are doing bl**dy good work then the higher standards will go all round and the 'odd job' will become insignificant (NO EXCUSE tho, it's a pet hate of mine and I'm trying my best to raise the bar and stamp it out...perhaps an ideal too far BUT!) Thanks.. Paul

Rob, thanks for your post...interesting stuff! Just to let you know where 'mi thoughts' are at the moment if I may. Several people have proposed differing levels/grades etc. of accreditation based on varying criteria and, I believe, the underlying 'common factor' is about accesibility to the scheme for smaller contractors, i.e. typically 'less than 5 employees' (including 'regular' freelancers) which sits very nicely with HSE requirements. My 'BIG' concern is that, understandable, 'Class 1, Class 2 or Gold, Silver, of Level 1, Level 2' etc. etc. would be seen by the client as different skills/abilities, hence the top one would always be the best one, when it would be based on 'breadth of compliance areas'...or similar = MASS CONFUSION (potentially.) I would much rather have one accreditaion, i.e. 'Approved Contractor', for all which would carry 'common' skills criteria, i.e. sectional felling/pruning/planting/arb knowledge etc., BUT which had a (much) lower level of documentary evidence requirement for H&S compliance, customer care systems, office procedures etc., the paper stuff! Thereafter, to a large degree, it would be 'horses for courses' (very apt at the mo with Cheltenham...mine's still running!) in that the larger contracts (LAs etc.) requiring a greater financial basis and ISO 9001 etc. would be for the 'bigger companies' AND smaller jobs for the domestic consumers etc. the smaller firms where the larger company overheads would likely price them out. Dunno (altho I believe the picture is getting clearer)...maybe I'm just too 'Betamax' molded?!...wots 'Blu-ray', kinda like 'Stingray?' Cheers.. Paul

HI Targettrees...tahnks for posting back. Think I/we/the AA, need to get the AC scheme right first and then look at other 'access' options...is that okay? (SORRY, you've probably sussed that I'm just trying to 'buy time'...."c'mon man get ur finger owt!") Very interesting thoughts tho and I wholly recognise much of the industry operates on a sub-contractor basis, i..e buying in a man/woman for a day, ...hmmm! Thanks again. Paul

Nooooooo....summat else for me to think about...aghhhhhhhh...ha! Is that not an ISA Certified Arborist, perhaps with current AA membership, dunno? Sorry, gotta dash as 'me n mi boys' are off to footie, we haven't played for about 5 weeks n rarin to go (bin up since 7am, all of us, mi wifes frantic...ha!) Paul

Rushed reply here, n appen I haven't fully read the thread...sorry! 2 quick things: I agree, in general, cellweb etc. is better incorporated in new development and retro-fitting is often not viable. Would the client lift the surface to reveal the offending roots? I've seen a few times a network of smaller (upto25-30mm) surface roots from Pines under tarmac driveways, appen taking advantage of the condensation build up on the underside maybe combined with salts or summat(?) BUT my point is my view, as LPA TO, was that they were not significant and could be removed...and without consent as 'de-minimus' works (in other words I couldn't be bothered going through full process for a few small roots!) trouble is IF tarmc goes back then the problem will undoubtedly reappear down the line....what about a nice 'gravel' driveway Mr Bloggs? Cheers all. Paul

Thanks for posting back! I know 'self-regulation' for the industry isn't the ideal BUT it's the next best thing I feel as, realistically, it's the only option available to us (obviously other than carry on as we are, which is an option but does that, collectively, move us forward?) Enforcement is a key issue, and for 'regulated' industries as the 'regulator' never seems to be in the right place at the right time and is usually underfunded). My view is that the more recognition we can give the 'good guys', and yes I believe that does mean 'a badge', and the more good guys we've got, combined with (massively) increasing awareness of who the 'good guys' are (partic in the domestic sector) AND what 'good practice' is, i.e. why topping/lopping your trees isn't the answer, then that's our best shot = 'enforcement (indirect) through education and awareness at the consumer level'! Dunno, appen I'm 'barking mad' and need to find a different tree BUT I need to do summat, to offer some 'better' opportunity for more 'good guys' to get the recognition they deserve and the industry moved forward. Thanks for reading.. Cheers.. Paul

Hi Freebird, welcome to the industry and you'll get as warm a welcome n good advice here as anywhere. Most people, IMO, enter the industry either directly by managing to secure a 'labouring' role and then train up, NPTCs etc., or do the training first then look for a job...not sure whihc approach is best but, ideally, prob the first one as you probably get more opportunity to consolidate your skills BUT NPTCs etc. are v. expensive for the employer. Gotto dash at the mo unfortunately but more than happy to discuss further, and other topics etc., if you wanna give me a call at the office on Monday (tel. 01242 522152 or 01803 845140). Cheers.. Paul