AA Teccie (Paul)

Apologies Julian, I meant to say 'last' para. Your reply explains exactly your concerns...would the words 'ARB Approved' do?...if so give me a call. Your proposal for the structure of industry bodies is interesting but as you intimated previously there is much history and politics to be considered. Thanks for your time here. Paul

Hi Julian, the Association (AA), been around in since 1964, has developed with the industry over time and hence is a very "broad-church" type organisation seeking to address the needs of all its members, be they contractors / consultants / tree officers / tree managers etc. etc. Whether it does this well is for the members to decide and "vote with their feet", so to speak, at the AGM. I do however agree (my personal view) that the industry is too fragmented and the major 'bodies' should / could agree a clear structure for the benefit of the industry and those working within it (this, 'organisation,' landscape is now quite different to what it was when I joined the industry in 1985.) Forgive me for protracting the conversation here, and apologies if I've misinterpreted (as I did with the Sect. 2 / 2.4 quote), but do the first and last sentence of the para above contradict to some degree...or is it that you're making the point anyone can set up as a tree surgeon and does have to join any organisation? Thanks in anticipation.. Paul

Hi Julian, In reply to your points above: 1. Thank you...albeit I did so in retrospect, never ideal however well intended the original post was. 2. Trade Association 'v' Profession Body = an interesting debate and we seek to be both, albeit the ICF now offering 'Chartered Arboriculturist' status makes the debate even more interesting (my role is much more akin to the organisation as a Trade Association and hence that's where my responses normally lie.) 3. GN9 - Ts & Cs for Arbor. Consultancy Services does not specifically mention the conflict of interest scenario (as per the RICS statement) although I would suggest it is implied in Sect. 2 Consultants Obligations (2.4 states: "The Consultant acknowledges that the Consultancy Services are provided by the Consultant as an independent contractor and no relationship of employee/employer or agency arises with the Client.") This is further reinforced, implied again though, by citing the Consultant, if an AA member, is bound by the Codes of Ethics and Prof. Conduct (derived from ICF.) Hope this helps...but not sure it does. Regards.. Paul

Hi Adam, thank you for your useful comments here which are helpful. Re your last para, whilst 'symmetry' may be aesthetically pleasing, and 'client pleasing', BS3998 states it shouldn't be done as the norm when undertake CRs as one should work with the tree's natural shape and form...unless of course that forms part of the spec. Cheers Paul

Interesting observation and my initial reaction was 'no', because they're typical activities covered by an industry body. However, on reflection, you're quite right particularly with the accreditation schemes in assessing competence. My response here would be that it's the organisation itself, i.e. the Arb Assoc, who deliver the standards / information / training and then it's specific assessors, most of whom are external to the organisation, who 'check' the standards. (In practice it's often myself involved in both roles and yes I do offer advice and guidance alongside assessing businesses for ARB Approved, at least in the first instance, and I'm sure this happens with AA Registered Consultants scheme, but professional integrity and the AA codes, as I too am a member, come into play. Additionally the schemes assessors have a separate 'code of conduct' which they must abide by.) At the end of the day I'm satisfied that we do award ARB Approved Contractor status only to those business who demonstrate the required standards and levels of competence required. Thankfully not many these days as they're often much better prepared, but some businesses do still fail the assessment process. Thanks for the post and "food for thought", it's good to be challenged...just not too often please. Cheers.. Paul

Hi there, sorry for the delay in responding. Glad you posted back again as this has been playing on my mind a bit. Firstly, and my comments were a little "off the cuff" as I mentioned, but I guess there's no harm in posing the "conflict of interest" question to your own businesses practice where you both consult and contract. Obviously thereafter there is a range of possible solutions ranging from undertaking them both and being bound by your own, and/or reinforced by ICF/ISA/AA, code of professional conduct / ethics to not doing them and directing clients elsewhere. In many respects "each to their own" but being clear on what your "own" is, is important (does that make sense? ) I feel. Secondly, obviously the schemes themselves address differing aspects of tree management and hence there is natural separation between the two activities which, in part, avoids the issue. I say that as many 'ARB Approved Contractors' do consult, to a greater or lesser extent, but not many, if any (that I am aware of) AA Registered Consultants actually contract...at least not directly. In both instances they are bound by the Association's Code of Ethics and Code of Professional Conduct, and the respective "rules / Ts & Cs of the schemes. Hence there is no specific 'policy' as such. Hoping this helps to clarify things, and qualified my "off the cuff-ness" Cheers.. Paul

ARB Approved Whilst it certainly is to a very good standard, no argument, and involving a species that lends itself to nice reductions, why is it that the height is often reduced more than the spread, or at least appears to be? Coz it's easier, coz the clients wants it, coz that's the right thing to do? I see this quite often and have never really understood why. Thoughts? Cheers.. Paul

CPD is an interesting thing. One of my main sources is ARBTALK and the stuff that's disseminated on here, in no small part thanks to yourself David, and others of course. Trouble is it's "informal" and people probably wouldn't think to record it in the same way they would a specific seminar / workshop / conference / show etc. BUT don't overlook this opportunity and, I guess, you would need to just capture "what" you've learned (very briefly.) Other than that I'm very lucky to be in a position which means I attend many events and glean much information...often combined with 'other duties'. Good to get people thinking about the subject. Cheers.. Paul

Perhaps I was pre-empting what Eugene might ask next in terms of possible conflicts of interest. To be honest it was a little "off the cuff" with no underlying concern nor intention, As you say, and many others have since, many do both roles and are completely open, honest and professional. Cheers.. Paul

Yep, lots. Which begs the potential 'conflict of interest' scenario and how impartiality is achieved. Some business offer consultancy under a different company to give at least some separation. Some business 'advise' clients to get 3 quotes based on their consultancy recommendations but hope to include their contracting arm within that. Cheers.. Paul

Hi there, credit to you for posting and looking to improve This reduction wouldn't accord with BS3998 as the general principle of not removing more than 1/3rd of 'foliage bearing material' appears to have been exceeded. Further, as others have said, ideally the secondary growth you prune back to should be at least 1/3rd dia. of the branch you're cutting. Overall it appears a little hard in places and because no suitable growth points are present, and Sycamore can be challenging to reduce anyway, some of the cuts are 'inter-nodal', i.e. between nodes/buds/shoots, which is akin to lopping (NOT that I would call this lopping but just to be aware.) Lastly, of course we didn't see the spec, in terms of reduction by how much, so it may be spot on! Hoping the above to be of help and good luck with the next one. Cheers.. Paul

Hi Steph, glad u found the day useful and look forward to your application in due course...good stuff! don't hesitate to contact me if you need any further guidance/assistance. Thanks for taking the trouble to post. best regards paul

Hi, it's at the Memorial Hall (i think) n 9.30 meet for 10am start. if you can email [email protected] she'll book you on and send joining instructions nearer the time with full details (and she'll prepare you a nice certificate for your CPD record, an advantage of actually booking on the workshop.) Thanks for your interest n look forward to seeing you there. Cheers.. Paul

Hi Tony, the TO is deemed to be a professional who is well placed to recommend you based on your work quality, an important prerequisite for approval. plus we've triedvto position the scheme to suit the local authority sector requirements, hence the LA connection. Regards...and goodnight PAUL

"No more"...latest HSE indg 317 & AFAG (FISA) 301 put it down to site / task risk assmt. Hence, generally, work gloves are fine. cheers PAUL

How'd you know if u don't come along n find out more. N if you know yiu don't meet the criteria, and you understand where/what, then ur already half way there...simples jokin apart do come along n have a look/listen. No obligation, no commitment...n it's free. Cheers.. paul

That's a pity. Be sure to come n join us if things change for you. cheers Paul

Insurance related posts often crop up on forum, understandably. Hence I would like to offer a couple of observations, if I may: PL = public liability (optional) and EL = employers liability (compulsory, if you employ / directly engage people...probably) 1. Cheapest doesn't = best (an obvious statement but a good start point.) 2. Are the quotes "like for like"? (easy to say but difficult to sometimes to compare...try) 3. Check the 'conditions / exclusions / endorsements', or whatever they choose to call them (in other words their opportunities not to 'pay-up' in event of an incident / accident) BE VERY CAREFUL HERE in relation to tree heights and removals in proximity to highways / structures. 4. Ask others opinions (in particular in the event of a claim, and THANK YOU 'ARBTALK' for an easy opportunity to do so) Lastly if you are self-employed person undertaking works for others ensure you are covered under their EL insurance under your terms / contract of engagement and/OR have very good personal accident cover (see attached.) Cheers all.. Paul Paralysed tree surgeon loses claim against National Trust.docx

Hi Steve, as I'm sure others have already said ("smell the coffee Paul!") FSB annual membership costs about £250 per year and they will help with recovering small value debts. Several ArbACs are members and talk very highly of it. Good luck n £200 is a lot of money AND it's the principle behind it Cheers.. Paul

Hey Rob...sorry should have said = FoC (but you have to bring yer own baggin) Hope that's oaky with you. Cheers.. Paul PS Sorry, don't know what I've done here, numpty 'Teccie' strikes again.

"Miss it = miss out!":lol: Okay, I don't do sales but "good effort" yeah?! So who's, gonna be joining me at Wrexham? REMEMBER if you're a 'small' business, i.e. fewer than 5 employees, and you come along with a nomination from a LA Tree Officer (see attached) you get the chance of a FREE assessment (saving £495 +VAT) or one of two 'half-pricers' (saving £247.50) Hoping to see you there Thanks all.. Paul Free_Assessment_Nom_Form-1213-web.pdf

Your only opportunity to prevent the TPO form being confirmed and made permanent is to 'object'. You should have a min. 28 days from the date you were notified, or the date on the Reg. 5 notice (see attached.) The primary reason for placing a TPO is 'amenity' value, i.e. visual impact, which can be present or future. Hence if the tree isn't clearly visible from a public place, i.e. street, then grounds for objection could be made. In terms of expediency, the Council have already determined this hence the TPO. Regards.. Paul TPO - objections.docx

Hi there, in addition to Julian's excellent explanatory post above I would suggest taking a look at the attached docs. Ideally I would recommend you should have at least the 'operatives' training in place if you are placing cones and signs and / or maintaining them through the working day (1 day course and training, rather than licensing, should be adequate.) Cheers.. Paul New Red book 2014.pdf NRSWA.docx

Hi, St Johns, unless specifically catering for the tree surgery / arb sector, would meet the minimum requirements for compliance. HSE (strongly) recommend FA training should be relevant to your industry, hence the comments about ArbAid and ABC who deliver this so it's much better really. If you can access a course that is industry specific and includes the +F (plus Forestry, inc. arb) suffix it may be beneficial as certain clients prefer it or insist on it (Forestry Commission.) Hope this helps. Paul