AA Teccie (Paul)

David, Kayt, the AA Finance Officer, has been replaced by Louisa for 4 days a week. Polly, the Membership & Accreditation Support Officer, has not been replaced and hence Mel is sometimes Polly...or should that be 'Molly' or 'Melly'! Lastly Zoe, Training & Events Support Officer, was made redundant and is obviously not replaced but Tiff is covering this role too. Sorry for any confusion (would help if I wasn't 'confused' so much of the time..'Matron!') Thanks.. Paul

...n not half as much fun eh?! Thanks TonyTree! Paul

David, thank you for your posting and the question posed. Simply because if we really believe we are the 'voice of the industry' (as we do, or rather as we want to be!) we need to be entirely open and inclusive. This is a public forum and we believe our forum hosted here should be equally open to all. The new AA website, fingers x'd available early April....2010!, will have a members only forum, which is fair enough I think. We did consider making part of that open to all BUT now we have this facility (thanks to Steve!) I don't believe we need another, plus I'd only then have 2 places to look for stuff and inevitably miss things (obviously tho there will, as always, be the general email available to enquirers). The 'ruby' shirts are the 'egg-ball' equivalent to the 'futball' shirts we're thinking of doing...not really, thanks for spotting the (none) deliberate mistake, I'll point it out to the Editor..! Best regards.. Paul

Thanks Stephen (hope I've not broken protocol there!)I do try and check out other postings but obvioulsy this now has to be my priority. My concern is that I still get a bit (lot!) lost round the forums and forget where I've posted things and I'm concerned people may have posted back and I've missed it...IF THAT'S YOU (collectively) PLEASE POST ME HERE! The banter's great and matches the clear camerarderie(?) that prevales...well done all! Cheers.. Paul

Thanks Andy, that's real good of you! Only trouble is who's gonna wear the 'pink carnation' for ident purposes...ha! Be a pleasure, count me in. Cheers.. Paul

Hi 'Arborist Sites', thanks for the post. I think it's because the (few) courses we have tried to run 'up north' over the past few years have been cancelled because of lack of numbers (probably principally down to our lack of advertising and promotion = 'MUST TRY HARDER'...dunno!) Thanks to Paul Bullimore (Lancashire Woodland Project), Ken Linford (TreeCheck) and Andy Hirons (Myerscough College, my old stomping ground) I have been back to the 'home country' a couple of times recently and indeed have another couple of event coming up. One to speak to the BSc & FdSc Arb students at Myerscough and the other to deliver a Risk Assessment workshop at Cuerden Park. BUT, if there's support for anything more, or different, I'm more than happy to listen and always happy to trip up there. Re- Conference prices, it varies whether you book early or late, but as a 'ball park' figure each delegate can save between £25-30 (over the 3 days). To be honest, as far as AA courses etc. are concerned, the greatest discounts rates are offered on the standard training courses, i.e. Risk Assessment, Tree Survey & Tree Inspection, where rates are much higher (the conference is always a very expensive event to put on and hence limits the 'discounts' we can offer...sorry!) Regards.. Paul

Hi Lee, thanks for the post. We currently employ 5 full time staff, inc. myself, and 2 prt time staff (one 2 days a week & one 4 days). I solely manage the AAAC scheme, along with other things, and in Polly's current absence (maternity leave) Mel provides some level of admin etc. cover for her role. General funding, as far as I'm aware, is from membership subs rather than any private donations (if people love trees they tend to donate to the Woodland Trust) but we do have income from training courses, seminars, workshops, conference etc. too. The AAAC scheme, which is separate to AA membership, is funded wholly through annual subs and generates a nominal surplus each year. Am I answering your question as I'm trying to '2nd guess' a bit? Please post back. Thanks.. Paul

'IC' I had you down more as a 'Green-Flag' or 'self-mend'...ha! Point taken, good post...thanks! Paul

Hi John, thanks for the post. 'Yes', I know this is a total inconsistency in application of the use, or rtaher non-use, of the AA logo. In answer to your question 'Yes' it would be acceptable, AND we need to sort out releasing use of the logo to all members (putting my neck on the line here but I says what I thinks...not alwasy the best strategy but 'old dog...' syndrome.) Regards.. Paul

Hi John, good to hear from you and thanks for the post. I quite agree, I actually tend to avoid groups of people where I'm unfamiliar (believe or not often at Trade Fair) BUT posting here will make me wanna talk more to people and seek their industry views. Using this form has come as quite a pleasant surprise, 'shocked' even, as I realise what a community spirit prevails and how bl**dy useful it is, sharing ideas, giving advice, a friendly voice(kinda) on the other end...'wicked!' Keep up the contact John. Best regards.. Paul

Cheers Danavan, You may regret it tho now I feel I can 'waffle at ease!" Thanks ofr taking the trouble to post your views and great you found the info useful....rather than 'useless', my norm...ha! Paul

Hi 'Mesterh', Didn't interpret your 'very good' question as aggressive at all so please 'ask away' and I'll give you the AAAC current stance on these matters....no probs! The 'waste licensing' issue for us is something of a grey area, with no definitive case law upon which to base advise AND a variation of interpretation of the Regs, across the country by reional EA offices (as evidenced by undertaking AC assmts./reassmts. over the past few years). Hence we previously contacted the EA national policy team and sought their opinion which, albeit heavily caveated, recommended we should have licences as what we produce is 'controlled waste', and depenedent upon its form and form where it originates there are 3 separate waste categories covering, AND, techncially, there will undoubtedly be times when what we are carrying is 'someone elses' waste. After much deliberation, and trying to take a pragmatic view, AND the fact a 'WCL' costs £140 for 3 years (£95 renewal) and is fairly straight forward to obtain, AND if the contractor got 'pulled in' on a multi-authority check point, i.e. Police, HMRC, Border Agency AND VOSA, you'd get through the process quicker, we decided to impose it as a standard requirement UNLESS you have a curent exemption certificate issued by your regional EA office. Many ACs are aggrieved at this situation, not so much the money involved (whihc isn't that great) BUT the prnciple of teh thing, which I fully understand, and maybe we've taken the easy road and should do more to support their views and challenge the EA but without an industry critcial mass behind us we are in a weak position to take such action. The EA 'Policy Statement' on the 'virgin wood' exemption I thought was our saviour and I would be 'knighted' and everything for bringing it to our industry, BUT I decided to check with my friends(?) at the EA and their view was that if all we carried was 'wood/timber' taht would be fine but as soon as any 'greenery', i.e. leaves, shoots, Leylandii (they mentioned specifcally), was on board it would 'contaminate' the load and render it as waste = WCL requirement. It's a mad, mad world we live in and sometimes we take the easy option BUT this is a topic, with a much greater following / industry representation behind me, and would be quite prepared to challenge more formally. Next question please..? Many thanks for the post. Paul

SORRY 'Skyhuck', realised that after I'd started replying, trouble is 'once I starts a 'waffle' I's gotta finish the 'waffle'. Cheers.. Paul

Stephen, 'et al', apologies for the delay in getting back to you but Friday afternoons is 'footie' afternoon with my boys n their teams (a chance to give Dad a good kicking for making them do their home-work in the week!) and then 'Friday night curry night' followed straight after...with the odd beverage to help wash it down...anyway! THANK YOU for your post, from which I am greatly encouraged by the content and I am more than happy to send through an AAAC information/application pack if you email me directly with your contact details, address etc. (eithere here or [email protected] whichever suits you best!) HOWEVER, "foot, self n shoot" time but if there's no pressing urgency for this then I'd recommend 'hanging fire', particularly if you employ 'less than 5 people', until we've had a full and proper debate here and we've had more feedback to Andy's poll on the main forum. The future of the scheme is in a state of flux, so to speak, and anything's up for consideration. The other thing is you say "..but if i had this then others would find me..", to be completely honest I reckon this is a shout too far at this moment in time. Although they 'may' find you, and particularly if you made a concerted effort to market yourself with the approval, the reality at this current time is that there are very few AAACs in Scotland and, generally speaking, the awareness of the scheme is also probably quite low (perhaps give some of the other AAACs a call and enquire with them). BUT, eventually, with more 'on board' this could be/will be be changed. There, now you know why I never made it as that car salesman...."onist Jon!" Thanks for the post Stephen and if you still require that info please do get in touch. Best regards.. Paul

Thanks for you post. You're quite right that if there was a 'bigger' pot we could do more, inc. maybe checking works intermittently, but I still see the LA TO having a key role here too plus having their involvemnet in the scheme will increase 'buy in' and commitment to the cause...so to speak. PLEASE DO EXPOSE ANY HOLES AS THIS IS OUR CHANCE TO 'PATCH THEM UP' AND GET IT RIGHT. Not wanting to do anything covertly but if you're happier contacting me directly then 'PM' me..PLEASE! Thanks.. Paul Now get back in that sunshine..!

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