AA Teccie (Paul)

I'm wrecking my brain here to try to say something "smart n witty" n to your exacting standards Mark...but I'm struggling Cheers.. Paul PS n we all know that isn't the case at all...what you've posted!

...coz I believe it's the best thing for the industry going forward (and the only viable 'CORGI' registered equivalent we currently have available...and, without exception, every contractor I've assessed had always said how useful and positive they've found the whole process.) I hope it doesn't comes across too ruthless...I always try to be subtle n friendly, not abrupt n forceful...unless specially requested or deserving of course. There, sorry, I'm (indirectly) "hounding" again Cheers Jake Paul

Some excellent stuff posted here (CPD, CPD,CPD) thanks all n another example of ARBTALK at its best! Cheers.. Paul PS Might even go do an assignment myself ....good luck with it Lee!

"I'm interested to look closer"...get an ARB Approved Contractor application in quick Looks very nice work (spec would say CR - whole crown, by approx. 1.5m maybe?) Thanks for posting.. Paul

...and perhaps Shigo's "Modern Arboriculture", okay not so 'Modern' now but much of it still current (I hope ), for some bedtime reading. Good advice from "10 Bears" on how to get started Good luck.. Paul

Perhaps not surprisingly, I'd be very cautious about so doing and breaching the account Ts & Cs, as someone else said, and potentially having yours and/or the business name black-listed with a bank...don't know if that's likely tho :I

Or to put a positive slant on it, responsible tree owners doing the responsible thing...hopefully with no ulterior motive

NOT suggesting speculatively by any means, given its the public purse that funds this, but there's always the option of testing it at appeal...assuming the LPA has registered and determined / refused the application of course. Paul

In general I would say "NO" as all the ownership / 'duty of care' responsibilities remain with the landowner / tree owner. Hence the 5-day notice situation etc. However, albeit I can't immediate recall any instances of such, the LPA may, potentially, be held responsible if their actions were found to be unreasonable in certain circumstances. (Nonetheless, in the event of an accident / incident the tree owner should ensure they have suitable insurance protection in place as I think they would still be responsible in the first instance and they would then seek to recover the cost of the claim etc from the LPA.) This is my opinion, not a statement of fact...please don't test it unnecessarily Cheers.. Paul

probably to keep personal 'income n expend' separate from business stuff I guess. The 2nd personal account is an interesting option though. Paul

Hi James, maybe consider joining the FSB (Fed. Small Businesses) which is available from about £120 per year to a sole trader. They did offer free business banking to members through Co-op, I believe, but if no longer the case they should be able to advise. Good luck.. Paul PS If you're a member of the Arbor Association you can join FSB via ourselves n save the £30 registration fee...plus the AA research fund benefits from a small intro fee.

IMHO, and indeed IME, subsequent to a tree failure, in part or as a whole, it is very easy to say "told you so", i.e. the benefit of hindsight, BUT was that really the case, i.e. was it foreseeable? If it was the legislation, in essence, allows for removal either via the application process or 5-day notice or immediate with imminent danger does it not? When I was an LA TO we go many spurious applications claiming the tree to be dangerous, often perceived danger coz blows around excessively in the wind etc. ect. Hence the now required further evidence / arb report when alleging danger. Re-compensation, I think there's a £500 threshold, i.e. has to be above that AND the damage foreseeable/proven AND the LA negligent. Cheers.. Paul

Hmmm, don't understand that. Will chase up with Head Office on Monday. Do you know you're membership number? Sorry Paul

Hi, mine came through a couple of weeks or so ago. Take it you received Issues 1 & 2 thtough the post? Paul

"Don't leave it too late.." You know where we are. Hope to hear more soon. Cheers Paul

Maybe complacency too, often a factor in my experience, and at all levels, as in we use this machine everyday so we'll carry on as always..."always" normally involving outriggers being placed on roads / hard-surfaces rather than soft woodland edges. Anyway, going back to that AAAC workshop... Cheers.. Paul

If you are looking to better position your business to access commercial work for 'buyers' including Local Authorities, Forestry Commission, Housing Associations and many others then ARB Approved is well worth considering. ARB Approved Contractor is the ONLY 'tree surgery' specific H&S Scheme registered with SSiP (Safety Schemes in Procurement, see SSIP - Safety Schemes In Procurement) For further general information see Arboricultural Association - Become an ARB Approved Contractor and for details of the ARB Approved Contractor (ArbAC) Preparation Workshops, which are FREE, see Arboricultural Association - Course *from less than £500 = small business ("fewer than 5 employees") inc. 25% initial assessment fee discount (by attending a FREE ArbAC Preparation Workshop AND applying for assessment within 3 months thereafter and assumes FULL approval) + £60 CHAS licence fee (annual) + £40 Trustmark licence fee (annual) = £471.25 +VAT @20% = £565.50 (thereafter annual scheme membership fees also apply 'pro-rata' from £295.00 +VAT)

"Late to the party"...unusual for you Kevin Indeed, the "human/behavioural" factor is most difficult to control. To all 'posters' here can I just clarify / confirm that the ICOP does not seek to recommend one method of access over another for a given situation, i.e. MEWPs over climbing, that is NOT its role / function. It merely seeks to set out a process for considering undertaking tree work at height which should ensure a consistent approach at the planning and management stage. The incident you refer to, was that the use of the wrong spreader plates on a woodland edge and the outriggers failed, hence the MEWP toppled....an 'indirect' fall from height, but absolutely a safety issue not least as the guy broke his back (I think.) Council prosecuted after worker's near-death fall | Media centre - HSE

Lantra - training courses have a 5 year expiry but their 'qualifications', which is what you will be doing, don't...in the same way NPTC's don't expire. However, both require 5 year refreshers anyway to accord with HSE guidance (but don't need to worry about that for a while.) Good luck.. Paul

Hi there, you may find you have to do the BALI / ROLO 1-day H&S course first before you can do the CSCS 'touch-screen' test. Thereafter, combined with your chainsaw etc. qualifications you'll then be issued with a CSCS/LISS card...SIMPLES:001_huh: We can offer the BALI/ROLO course, delivered in an 'arb' context, but increasingly it tends to be as a bespoke course, i.e. "supply n demand" basis. There are several other organisations / training providers who also offer it. Good luck.. Paul

What you describe is, in H&S speak, the "reasonably practicable" argument, i.e. cost v benefit which means the cost (increase) is disproportionate to the benefit (safety gains) and hence can be discounted. Just make sure you note that on the site RA and enjoy your time in the MEWP doing the other 25% of trees Cheers Peter...I'm off fer some scram now. Paul

Hi Si, As I understand it you can access Level 2 - chainsaw from a MEWP with CS30, well certainly Lantra seems to allow such (see https://www.lantra.co.uk/awards/product/lantra-awards-technical-award-use-chainsaw-mobile-elevated-work-platform-mewp-2-0 where it states "please make sure that you hold a current licence to practice in the MEWP type you would like to use as well as a working knowledge of chainsaw maintenance and cross-cut techniques." However City & Guilds / NPTC says differently "Qualification Overview: The candidate must have previously completed pre-requisite units (201) Chainsaw Maintenance, (202) Cross-cutting and (203) Felling and Processing up to 380mm. " (see NPTC ) Cheers.. paul

Hmmm, interesting...and no apology needed, it is something of a mine-field at times. I would suggest, albeit arguably, that regardless of what you are doing with the chainsaw, i.e. pruning / dismantling / carving, you will need both "adequate training" and a qualification, i.e. CS47 being applicable here (albeit no longer referred to as such because both City & Guilds / NPTC AND Lantra now offer the 'new' Level 2 -Use of a chainsaw from a MEWP qual.) This is because of H&S legislation and particular the PUWER Regs. The other issue is a 'MEWP ticket' / qualification specific to the type of machine you are using...a further complicating factor unless you have an operator with you in the bucket but that introduces risk and more issues to consider. Re-nullifying your insurance = potentially, but you'd have to speak with them as they may possibly have a different view for carving. Hope this helps, at least a little, but do say if not...not a problem. Cheers Paul

Hi Peter, We are largely working with 'principles', taken directly from H&S legislation, and probably "facts n figures" from other industry sectors and not arb (because we don't have these available.) However, as I mentioned previously, and albeit anecdotally, I heard of several instances last year were climbers fell from trees and only one involving a MEWP...but proportionally they may be similar figures OR in favour of tree climbing. Its all somewhat speculative. However, as I said before, there is no intention to deter tree climbing at all but to encourage better decision making in terms of the planning and organisation of tree-work at height...as per the ICOP, W@H Regs and Management Regs. The fact remains that, in the event of an accident or incident, questions will be asked IF a MEWP could access the site and there was adequate space available (potentially your insurance company may also have an interest here if you're not complying with documented industry guidance.) Whilst this is doubtless a very debatable, and even controversial issue, the required action is simply to consider GROUND - MEWP - CLIMB - REVIEW, and in that order, and ideally record / "justify" as you move from the first to the next, to the next, i.e. WHY are you climbing (and not simply because that's what you are highly trained to do and specialise in.) Sorry, feel I'm just repeating myself here. Paul

The ICOP is not a document to deter or prevent tree work from rope and harness at all, it is simply a framework to ensure a consistent approach to the planning and organisation aspect that is derived from the W@H Regs. Additionally, within the Management Regs, it sets out a hierarchy for risk prevention and 'collective protective measures' (meaning passive controls - MEWP bucket) always takes priority over 'personal protective measures' (meaning active controls - rope and harness.) REMEMBER also this is purely considering the risks associated with "falls from height" which, as many have pointed out, is just one of a range of hazards that may be present...albeit a significant one AND one that has its own, specific H&S Regs (W@H Regs.) Know its a negative view, and highly unlikely to occur (I sincerely hope), but a HSE Inspector will always ask the question about why a MEWP wasn't used and in particular IF access / space was favourable. In order to get the document accepted by HSE, and to comply with legislation, it has to be set out the way it is, i.e. the risk hierarchy of GROUND - MEWP - CLIMB - REVIEW, and hence so long as your risk assessment process takes account of this, and, ideally, your justification is documented, you can happily climb away. Perhaps its something of a mind-set change it terms of trying not to automatically default to HOW will I climb the tree but to DO I NEED TO climb the tree and, if so, why...and then HOW. I'm waffling, time to go. Cheers.. Paul