AA Teccie (Paul)

Whilst I fully understand your comments, and take them on board completely, I'm afraid the 2 aspects of what we do are intrinsically linked AND, I would suggest, with any form of approval clients at all levels would expect you to be complaint with H&S, undertake safe working parctices AND then do good treework. We can certainly look at 'cutting it (H&S compliance) to the bone', so to speak, and particularly for the "less than 5 employees" (remember regular 'subbies' would be include here too) BUT the 'aerial rescue' thing is gonna be a sticking point...I'm sorry! Regardless of how often they're used, as it would seem 'self-rescue' is the norm (not good wording but you know what I mean), ground based 'rescuers' (or indeed a 2nd climber already in the tree) competent, fully kitted up etc. etc. is the only realistic way (except for a MEWP of course) we can comply with the 'W@H Regs' requirement AND manage the HSE expectations AND adhere to AFAG 401/402 guidance...unless you've any other ideas/thoughts? (I'm worried!) In terms of cost, as an example, if you wanna become a CHAS 'Accredited' "less than 5" contractor it will cost you £95 for the assessment (desk-top exerecise, i.e. send off your docs. and statements) + £60 admin = £155 annually, so it needn't be silly money. The assessment aspect of this fee (£95) is incorporated inot the AAAC fee. Give it some thought, as will I, and post back later. Thanks for the post! Paul

Excellent Andy, you're the first on-line approval...kinda an 'honorary' award. thanks again..! Paul

Sorry if I'm off the mark here but, bizzarely, the TPO legilsation works 'a*se about face' in that, if challneged by the LPA, you're actually guilty until you prove innocence...hence lots of piccies and knowledge!!! Cheers.. Paul PS Wow...a brief reply...from me!!!!

My (perosnal) view, based on the photo's posted is that there's probably adeqaute evdience to support removal as an exemeption under 'DDD', and I would always recommend a 5 day notice be submitted to the LPA. However, there is a view that if the tree(s) are unlikley to fail within the application determintaion period, i.e. 8 weeks ('yeah, right!'), then it may be better so to do. the trouble with this of course is that it risks 'residential/political' intereference which may (bizzarely) result in a refusal of consent = scuppered! There, that's a definitive answer then...NOT! Personally I'd recommend speaking to the Tree Officer concerned and take thier advice as to best to proceed BUT bearing in mind you are providing a service to your client and you need to best represent their interest too. Hence be well informed about the tree, its current condition, the likely prognosis, the future development (odds on 'Armellaria' will finish it off) AND the legislation. PLUS remind the TO that IF you remove as 'DDD' he gets an automatic replacement...and make it a nice offer, maybe even '2-4-1' (BUT you're not obliged to do so AND he/she can't enforce even if you offer it.) Hope this to be of use (some?!) Cheers.. Paul

Sorry Rob, as you may have noticed if you've read any of my previous postings 'brevity & succinctness' just aren't my bag! Another coupla quick things cam inot my mind (AGGHHH!!!...I don't need anything more!) the issue of 'risk assessment' and how taht's intrinsically linked with training as that's our main 'control' as an industry in developing 'competent' (not just NPTC certificated) operatives AND the human factor, i.e. the receptiveness and attitude to training and devlopment by the individual themselves, this is often a direct reflection of the 'culture' that previals in the company. Oh yeah (double AGHHH!!!!) and not forgetting the value of 'on the job' training form otehr experienced operatives, kinda a 'mentoring' role. There, have I blown your mind now....I'll leave you to write! Good luck with the assingment! Paul

Hi 'Charlie H', My colleague Polly stone is a member, BUT she's on maternity leave at the mo so unavailable to comment personally, but she mentions it as being quite useful AND has kept her membership to date. Sorry can't offer anything more. Cheers.. Paul

Andy...THANK YOU, this is excellent (I'm well chuffed!) I have a lot of faith in people, and I know we all want the same thing at the end of the day, so I'll watch with 'great' interest and glean further ideas and thoughts. I probably won't post there myself as I don't want to stifle opinions at all (as if!) but I'll adopt a watching brief...d'ya reckon that's the right approach? Appen I'll post summat when it slows down kinda to summarise, and check I've unerstood the groundswell of opinion correctly, AND of course to thank people for their contributions. "SPOT ON!"...thanks again Andy, much appreciated! Regards.. Paul

Hi 'Skyhuck', thanks for the post. Annoyingly, but sometimes I just can't 'shake off' my NEBOSH H&S head...aghhhh!!!! Firstly the requirement to undertake risk assessments applies to all, not just AAACs, and it's a common area of failure highlighted on most HSE accident investigations...but that's not really your point! It all depends really, you could take a view that as the only (or one of a few) AAACs it may give you a competitive edge over others (dunno??!!) BUT in terms of gaining greater recognition and 'value' at the LA/commercial level certainly more would be better. I do agree tho the benefits of a 'sole' AAAC are probably quite limited. Sorry, waffle time (and probably all repeats...is it Christmas?! The HSE do a series of one day workshops (FOC) to clients, LAs & the like, about 'Engaging Competent Arb. Contractors', which I deliver on principally introducing the AAAC criteria as a benchmark for arboricultural contracting. During the day most delegates tell me whilst they see the benefits (to them) of engaging arb contractors with an external accreditation, particularly now as it includes CHAS (and 'yes' we can award this for "less than 5 employees"), there simply aren't enough around to do so as they need a set number of quotes/tenderers dependent upon the stimate contract value, i.e. upto £1k = 3 quotes, upto £10k = 5 quotes etc. etc. Hence the 'chicken & egg' scenario which prevails nationally = we/the AA need to get more (many more) contractors recognised. My hope, is that if we can engage with a core of contractors in each region of the country the scheme and accreditation will self-perpetuate (I think that's the right word, I mean it'll grow itself automatically)...perhaps an idealism BUT one I think, 'NO' believe, we need as an industry. Reet, "shut up" Paul you've 'rabbited' enuff! Hope this is useful! Thanks.. Paul

ALL....THANK YOU! Your contributions are incredibly helpful and thanks for takin the time. Perhps a little dangerous, but whilst small in number (relatively speaking), I read them as being fairly representative of the contracting industry BUT if anyone else wishes to offer an alternative view if they don't feel this is the case then PLEASE, PLEASE DO SO! To date, to some extent, I've been 2nd guesssing what the industry needs to best move it forward AND doing so with a heavy bias towards the existing AAAC scheme = 'tunnel vision'???...perhaps! What I'm understanding from the postings is some form of tiered/split level approach, in particular recognising the "less than 5 employees" H&S requirements, and making access easier for smaller firms (in particular financially) but with a 'common' standard of quality tree work. Also a keeness to include the wording 'Approved' at all levels of accreditation. PLEASE SHOUT IF I'M MISSING ANYTHING OR OFF THE MARK (as if I need to ask eh?....gud on ya's!!) Thanks again..! Paul

CONFUSED???...I don't get confused at all....just ask 'Matron'???!!! Glad the cheery (?) Cherry tree got it's haircut and in the sunshine too eh....foooooond memories, ah well! I do feel a bit bombarded at the moment but hey I was never naive enough to think I wouldn't be but you (all) tricked me initially by giving me a easy intro...still, as long as summat better than 'where we are' / 'what we've got' comes out of it I don't mind a few more grey hairs! I totaly agree that stanadrds of tree work quality must be a 'common' standard throughout coz if we can't get that right ("yeah, yeah, I know what your thinking everyone!) then there's not much point continuing. I think you got your H&S abbreviations mixed up as 'ACOP' doesn't have any *s in it...ha! Thanks for the post Andy, Tony, Fred, 'PAUL'...!!!! Cheers.. Paul

Hi Rob, a little 'random' I'm afraid as it's Thursday, and according to Chris Evans before he moved to th enew breakfast show, that's the new Friday. Forgive me also if I'm on a completely differnet tangent here, but I would also start at the foundation requirement for 'provision of adequate training, information and instruction' which is a key employer duty in Sect. 2 o fthe HASWA 74. This is then further reinforced in the Management Regs. (Management of H&S at Work Regs. 1999) Reg. 13 and includes 'Capabilities', something which may be overlooked. Another key issues with our current industry arranagemnts for H&S training is ommission of the 'skills consolidation period' between receiving your Lantra Awards training and undertaking your NPTC assessment (you have 6 mnths within whihc to take the 'test' and the FC ar every keen on this consoldiation period to allow operators, under the watchful eye of an existing NPTC holder, to practice and hone their new skills before being NPTC'd, not a good analogy but perhaps a little like a trainee driver withtheir provisioanl licence going out with their parents to further develop their new found skills before sitting the driving test....something whihc generally standas them in very good stead and increases their likelihood of passing). Typically our industry involves training and assessment in the same week and whilst I acknowldge this makes better economic sense, and employers like it as it (supposedly) means they can go out and work unsupervised, its not the most effective means of training and ensuring adequate capability is developed. Another key aspect of training is regular monitoring of an individuals performance through site safety audits and the AFAGs to which yu refer can equally be used for this purpose (hence the tickboxes in the left-hand margins and the space for notes + signatures and dates at the end....apologies if this is a bit "grannies, eggs and sucks".) As you've already highlighted refersher/updated training is important and both AFAG 805 & the Management Regs. ACOP (Approved Code of Practice) makes specifc refernece to this. Rob, is this the kinda stuff you're looking for as if so I'll give it some further thought? IF not I'll bid you farewell sir and move on. Regards.. Paul

Take it you've finished the 'Cherry' tree..? Not rambling at all, that's my domain, it's good positive stuff you're suggesting and I'm all ears (literally, to some extent!) I fully acknowledgde your point about 'pro-rata' fees based on turn over BUT this is more important in respect of the bigger the company = the more staff = the requirement for longer duration assessment = increased cost, and of course with a need to ensure the accreditation carries adequate 'value' to warrant this expenditure. This is addressed in the recent AAAC consultation document. As I mentioned somewhere(?) in a previous posting, there may be scope to develop an interim award to act as a stepping stone to full AAAC status, IF firms want that or they can stay at the first stop if they so wish. "Off the top...", my initial concern about grading in the way you suggest is that it won't be seen as a staged approach but more of a scoring mechanism, kinda like Distinction, Merit & Pass in exams (not a great analogy, sorry, but I hope it explains what I mean. If not I'll try this, in a fomer life I was a trainee driving instructor (now that is a stressful job!) and once you've passed you get graded based on your performance, anything from Grade 1 - Grade 6, and you have to be Grade 4 or above to practice). Please keep the thoughts/ideas coming...thank you! regards.. Paul

At the risk of "waking sleeping dogs" I offer the following responses, with input from Nick Eden, to several of the points Andy raised on Tuesday which I was unable to answer straight away...thank you! Perhaps Paul, you could explain a few of the following...... 1) How are the public "benefiting", from having an "industry" that remains unregulated and unstandardised? An ongoing problem which the AAAC actually contributes to, as opposed to doing everything withinin its powers to rectify? PS/NE - Many industries aren’t government regulated, our industry is just one. The AAAC (and AARC) schemes are about inviting arbs to submit to voluntary regulation in the absence of government regulation. 2) Cross referencing to the statement from the AAAC report - '8c- The issue of LA TOs etc. ‘policing’ the standards locally again came up with a suggestion for simplified complaints/notification procedure to be agreed between the AA & NATO members for reporting of incidents.'. When considering that 41.8% of the consultation responses came from LA TOs, how is implying, nay condoneing the use of public funded civil servants, in the public benefit? PS/NE - Please remember that this is feedback from the survey respondents, not the AA! Protecting and enhancing publically and privately owned trees is a major focus for most TOs and I think most would agree this benefits the public. If poor tree work is undertaken by contractors then this can be addressed if the contractor is part of a scheme that regulates its activity and if the regulator is made aware of the poor work. Of course, if the contractor is not regulated then it is up to the client alone to pursue poor tree work. Considering point 4.23 of the AAs MaAoA, and that LAs now have to excersise "best value", is this use of public funded staff to "police" the assets of an independant charity, not tantamount to breach of the point 4.23? PS/NE - As an ex-TO myself (in the early “best value” days) I know that my employer was very supportive of any action I took to look after trees in my district. I never had to report an AAAC or AARC to the AA for poor tree work in my district but if it had been necessary I would have done it to protect trees, not to help the AA. With my AA hat on I can assure you that investigating a complaint properly costs the AA time, effort and money. When considering the approx 30,000 people (LANTA figures) that work in trees and timber, and the quoted approx 2000 of which are AA members, is implying that those contractors not AAAC approved are NOT proffesional, not also tantamount to slander and therefore poses a further possible breach to 4.23? PS/NE - The title “Find a Professional” means that people listed in it are professionals. It does not say, or imply, that those listed are the only professionals in the industry (Find a Professional).

Excellent, I wish I could BUT I much prefer sitting here in a stuffy office bashing heck out of the keyboard...afterall who wants to be outside in that luverly sunshine with fresh air n bird song doing good tree work, hopefully with a hand-saw???...MEEEEEEE!!!!! I totally agree the wording you refer to ain't good, n to be totally honest (head on the block here!) I don't think I've read it previously (shhh!) but it won't be readable(?) on the new website coz it won't be there. Hope you've had a great day..! Cheers.. Paul

Andy, thank you for your posting and whilst I'm saddened if there are 'two' camps (perhaps I just need to get real tho...as I rapidly am!) the frustrating thing is we share a common goal! I wholly agree we do indeed need to harness that 'grass(tree?)roots' enthusiasm to the benefit of all AND the industry. As part of the AAC review we did consider having a multi-tiered approach but my concern was this could be confusing for the client (maybe I'm paying them a dis-service) and better if we had one standard/level and made access easier, i.e. the 'modular approach. However if there is significnat support for this approach, i.e. an interim award as kind of a 'half-way' house, then I'm more than happy to listen and present this to the AAs Professional Committee (it is something we've already had tentative discussions around.) Can I just clarify that your reference to 'boosting the coffers' would be re-invested and allow us to better promote the Association, its members and the industry as currently resources are very limited in this regard. The consultation document proposed 'change', as we apprecaite we need to adapt to survive, and we are open minded as to how best to achieve this. Any further thoughts you, and/or others, have would be welcomed. Regards.. Paul

Excellent, thanks Tony, I'll probably be joining you in it's frequent use! Regards.. Paul

Tony, thank you for your valuable contribution here. Just a couple of things, if I may, I've figured out that 'apocryphal' means disastrous (kinda), but the abbreviation 'IIRC' is completely lost on me I'm afraid...enlightenment please?...thank you! Regards.. Paul

Exactly, it's entirely your choice. If you don't feel AA membership will bring you any benefits, either directly, i.e new business/supplier discounts etc., or indirectly, i.e. helping keep your knowledge & CPD up-to-speed, then why part with your 'hard earned' money. Obviously we hope you will as we believe membership does bring benefits, plus it adds to a 'bigger' industry voice, but the choice is yours. Thanks for the post. Regards.. Paul

Thanks for replying. As I see it one of the real strengths of our industry is that you can progress from 'the tools' to 'the reports' without any real barriers AND that previous experience to which you refer is invaluable and NO qualification can substitute for it. Most, if not all, arb consultants I know have spent some time on the tools and many still grab any opportuntiy so to do if it comes their way, hence there is a very strong link between practising and advising, which is a real strength (not sure where that ones going, just thinking out loud!) At the end of the day, reagrdless of memebrships/qualifictions/accreditations etc. etc. (whilst useful to 'open doors' perhaps) the client will decide if you're professional and 'worth your salt' and then they'll come back to you, and again, and again, and then you're business will be successful (this seems to reflect your business model which is great.) Should it be of interest, there is an alternative route (via assessment where you submit a portfolio of your work and other information etc.) available to Professional Member status and the information is on the website, just keep scrolling down the info pack. Again the fact that we promote Association members at that grade as 'Professional' does absolute NOT mean if you're not a member your not professional...as we've said the client will ultimately decide. Regards.. Paul

Skyhuck, you've lost me a bit (not hard I'm afraid). The scenario you describe above relates to membership of the AA rather than AAAC status, which is what(?) I thought you were asking about...sorry I've misunderstood. I'll try again. Anyone can join the AA regardless of qualifications or none. Qualifications will help with certain membership grades, dare I say at the higher level, but this is entirely consistent with other professional bodies, i.e. IOSH. As far as AAAC status is concerned, you can have as many degrees (& NPTCs) as you like but if you can't "cut the mustard", so to speak, you won't make the grade. Is this your concern? PLEASE REPLY! Regards.. Paul

Skyhuck, thanks for your several contributions to my postings ..I like your 'straight to the point approach' and I'm sure it's welcomed by many readers who are thinking the same but don't post...DON'T STOP please! 'Lead Ballon Time' I'm afraid, and you know what I'm gonna say right?! Bottom line, whilst I'm sure your as competent as hell in what you do (and that's what really matters) BUT in this respect with a scheme recognised by HSE and recognising the NPTC as the 'cert. of competence' awarding body we would require you to update to the 'modern' suite of NPTC units. Obviously you wouldn't need to do the training necessarily, just book the test and get the ticket. As I mentioned, as part of the actual worksite audit what we are more interested in (whilst the relevant tickets have to be in place) is true 'competence' which only comes about through experience and this shines through with a good climber. Equally, we have failed companies because this has essential skill has not been demonstrated competently even tho the climber holds the relevant ticket (therein lies another story!) Regards.. Paul

Bloomin heck...."whilst the cat's away" eh?! Sorry been deliverin a RA course at Merrist Wood today n only just got back to the office...now kinda wished I hadn't (not really!) Clearly some people out there are very (very) angry at the Association and I'm kinda thinkin I wihsed i hadn't reared my head...but I have, and it needed to be done, if only to receive 'slappings & kickings' BUT hopefully you'll give me the time to read my postings...thank you! Firstly I'm really sorry I/we/this topic seems to be bringing out very vented frustrations, or worse, in people n most of you have probably been out doing a hard days work n probably switched on for a bit of friendly banter to unwind n got embroiled here...n then probably tossed n turned all night....aghhh!!! I simply can't answer every point which has been raised but I'll try and pick up on some of the key ones if I may: Use of the phrase 'Find a Professional' does absolutely not seek to infer that those not listed are not professional in any way, shape or form, and I'm very sorry to those who have interpreted this way. It's essentially a way of catching the website 'browsers/visitors' by labellling the ACs & RCs accredited as professional operators. Again, but acknowledging you have no way of knowing this other than maybe to act as a bogus caller, several enquirers looking for a reputable professional want someone on their doorstep ideally, which we more often than not cannot facilitate so we tell them there are undoubtedly other reputable companies in their towns but we simply don't know of them as the scheme is voluntary. Re-paulsbrash later posting. Perhaps not the best choice of wording, and again open to interpretation, but the reality is there is a high failure rate, approx. 50% at the first attempt for AAAC and unfortunately some don't return...hence the statement (BUT I don't like it AND it won't be included on the 'new' website!) The wording is meant to mean(?), or seeks to inform the reader, that the contractor themselves undertakes the said inspection to maintain their own standards of work, NOT the AA. As you quite rightly state we don't do 'spot checks', we only check/inspect works at initial assessment and reassessments. Again I'm sorry you're so upset and flabbergasted but again your interpretation that your afraid of the standards is completely wrong. The Association is both a registered charity, with set charitable objectives, and a limited company which is obliged to its membership, and the industry,to generate a surplus of monies to continue its service to both. Should it be needed the accounts are readily available....we have nothing to hide for goodness sake, and we're certainly not aiming to make money out of the industry which we serve. That would be poor business practice and immoral and that we certainly are not. Certain contriubutors seem intent on "sinking the AA ship" by seeking to expose alledged malpractice, maladministration and shoddy practices which is a real shame coz we only seek to serve the industry for the betterment of all. We may c*ck things up at times, we may proceed with ideas and scheme we consider as best/good practice without having full industry support, AND we go back along way and have a lot of official documentation produces years ago which needs updating and ensuring is consistent with what we're doing currently BUT we all believe what we ar edoing is for th egood of the membership and the industry and, simply, that's our bottom line (no hidden agendas no alterior motivates!). Come on board, get involved, share your ideas, tell us what you want and WE WILL LISTEN & ACT IF WE CAN. I need a beer, or two..! Cheers all and thanks for reading..! Paul

Hi Stevie, thanks for the post. Sounds like you're pretty well set up and fairly happy with your lot, so to speak, which is great. As you mention you don't particularly wish to enter the LA/commercial sectors then clearly AAAC / CHAS status would be of limited value. It may help to reinforce your position by underpinning your existing position by carrying external accreditation but again this is probably of limited value to you. Obvioulsy there are the benefits of extrenal recognition of you H&S compliance and operational competence which would undoubtedly stand you in good stead if naything unexpected ('accident') happened and HSE investigated. Then again having gone through the process the likelihood of this 'unlikey' occurence should be reduced to 'highly unlikely' anyway...pardon??? Some smaller companies /firms operating mainly in the domestic sector choose to go AAAC when the competition gets harder and they're looking for something additional to 'stand out from the crowd', so to speak, but I always advise these companies they need to be aware that implementing and maintaining AAAC status will inevitably introduce an additional overhead inot the business whihc will affect the bottom-line, i.e what they charge the cleint, and hence this move could be counter-productive. That said, many have and it's worked for them. Tis your choice really? Now just in case I've got the 'wrong end of the stick' (APOLOGIES if so!) and you actually do mean 'membership', as opposed to 'AAAC' status, here we go: - Membership of the single largest UK body for arboriculture (BUT with much capacity to grow) and teherfore contributing to a bigger voice for the industry. - Helps to keep you informed of what's new and 'happening' in the UK arb industry generally - Dependent on what level of membership you're thinking of it can bring the right to use letters/post-nominals after your name and it can bring access to the members benefit scheme whichincludes discounts from various companies and suppliers etc. - Direct access to arb technical help via telephone or email - Oh yeah and a free AA mug if we see you at the 'Arb Show' (AA Trade Fair) AND free entry (saving £8.) Think that's about it...post back if any more questions. Thanks again. regards.. Paul

Dear 'arb culture', thank you for your post and for the interesting points therein. I don't consider there to be a conflict of interest particularly, as both membership and accreditation seek to recognise and promote professionalism and professional practice in the industry (and again that is absolutley NOT to say that if you are not a member nor an AAAC / AARC you are not professional, you have simply chosen not to have your professionalism recognised by the Association because you, and your clients, recognise you already...I really do understand that and respect it's entirely your perogative so to do.) Whilst I understand what you are saying here you have the choice, as anyone does, to attain accreditation with the AA. Perhaps one of the key related issues here is restriction of use of the Association logo to further/better promote you membership, currently being solely the domain of the ACs & RCs? If so, this issue is currently 'on the agenda' as there are many who feel its use should be released to members to gain recognition for the benefit of both the 'member' and the Association....'watch this space.' Obviously, IF this happens we need to ensure the ACs & RCs have the right to use a different, but related, logo to recognise their status too. You mention there are "...other and better ways of choosing a good contractor or consultant" which intrigues me, do you mean through personal recommendation etc, or some other means? In terms of confusing the clients, we do get several calls from clients asking if contractors using the logo are approved by us, i.e. "just checking", so whilst I acknowledge some may be confused others aren't. Regards.. Paul

Many thanks 'misterTee', Be sure to 'pop in' n see us again. Regards.. Paul