AA Teccie (Paul)

Harry, thank you for your post and good to hear you found the course useful. Cheers.. Paul

Conan, thanks for your post...I must confess to being a bit lost within it tho I'm more than happy, in fact I'd love, to do stuff 'up north' (the 'mother land') but sadly we very rarely get the min. nos. req'd to make it viable. In this instance the min. nos. 6-8 would be req'd...presumably you are saying you're just the one, i.e. no additional staff etc. Do you have colleagues / compatriots who may be interested? Cheers.. Paul

Trees are a 'material consideration' in the planning process regardless of whether or not they are TPO'd / CA'd etc. Hence if there are trees on the site at the time of application (???) the LPA (Local Planning Authority) are quite correct to ask for an arb report. On receipt the tree / planing officer should determine whether a TPO would be appropriate, if not aleady in place, but in so doing should have a recognised procedure for so doing, i.e. Helliwell System (or variation of). Regardless of development proposals, if the tree doesn't make the (TPO) grade then it shouldn't be protected...SIMPLES! Paul

Hi David, hope you're well. Not quite, however 'your' industry code of practice dictates that you should have a physical divide / barrier when both a cutter and operator are in the same bucket. Failing that, production of a detailed Risk Assessment / Method Statement explaining what other measures you are employing to achieve an equivalent level of control should be undertaken and the size of the bucket / distance from cutter is a good starting point (as is method of working, i.e. operator stays with the controls and perhaps the lanyard used ensures this, as is PPE, i.e. chainsaw jacket for the operator unless he/she is chainsaw 'qualifed' and maybe anyway if you have one etc. etc.) The above 'suggestion', whihc is the norm when you are veering form published guidance, will only ultimatley be deemed acceptable or not in the event of HSE intervention. Hope this helps. Cheers.. Paul

Hi Tony, hope yer well. Is that a 'philosophical' question you pose...VAT does apply to H&S products, does it not? But the 'H&S' aspect of the course is incidental, effectively it's the delivery of a service and as we generate income above the VAT threshold of £77k p/a (I think) we have to charge it...sorry! Paul

Hi Tom, Strictly speaking 'Operatives', i.e. those enagaged in placing signs & cones etc., need an 'O6' streetworks qualification, and 'Supervisors', i.e. those checking they are correct, need an 'S6' qual. See Street Works Qualifications Register - Qualifications There is some debate currently as to whether all contractors need a 'streetworks (photocard) licence' or whether evdience of training, whihc many existing arbs have by virtue of City & Guilds Unit 02 & 10, should suffice. If you ahve neither then safer to get the licence if you're working on the highway. Cheers.. Paul

Hi there, Not at all, it's a good place to ask and it's absolutely your business if your interested and/or engaged in that work. My recollection is, that during production of the guidance the AA had a rep on the technical panel, may have been Giles Biddle (I stand to be corrected here...as always.) Hence the reference / influence, probably. Further I think the guidance was produced prior to the ICF offering 'Chartered Arboriculturist' status. However, I would suggest the two quotes below from the document could be interpreted and applied to either an AA Reg Con (which Giles was at the time, and still is) or ICF Arb. Perhaps a key factor, and I say with without the knowledge of the ICF process, is to recommend a status whihc has to demonstrate competence in the particular subject area and I know the AARC process does that in relation to trees and buildings...but ICF Arb may do so also, I don't know I'm afraid. "The services of a specialist arboriculturalist may be helpful for the identification of the type and condition of trees that may affect building work. This includes trees both on and adjacent to the site." "Dead trees and dead hedgerows should be removed. Unstable trees should be made stable but where this is not possible they should be felled. If in doubt, advice should be obtained from a Registered Arboriculturalist." Hope this reply helps...if only a little Cheers.. Paul

REMEMBER £95 (+VAT ) for AA members, otherwise £155 (+VAT) Cheers.. Paul

Hi Sam, thanks for your post. Whilst I acknowledge there is some RA information and templates freely available on the AA website, the 'deliverables' that come with this workshop include much more infromation and many more generic risk assessments, plus some other 'bits n bobs'. In reality, as witnessed on several occasions, many contractors out there have copies of the fuller RA system but very seldom really understand it and rarely maintain/update it. The workshop explains all this...and more. In terms of what makes it 'special'...well, I deliver it In all honesty Sam, and yes this is said in (large) part as an industry H&S professional, ANY and ALL training in risk assessment, and this is just one day, will benefit you as either an operative or an employer (including a person who engages the services of others, i.e. sub-contractors), and particularly the latter. It will also do your intended ArbAC attainment no harm too as (too) often there are problems with businesses and risk assessment. Cheers.. Paul

Hi Dave, hope you're well. I'll happily run the course in Cornwall, if you can drum up a minimum of 6-8(max. 12) people to listen to me. Do you know Tim Scott-Ellis, might be worth speaking with him as he seems to make things happen down there. Hope to hear back soon. Cheers.. Paul

All, an event not to be missed , joking apart, and to quote a fellow ARBTALKER (who shall remain nameless for fear of retribution) "a workable solution". Where: ILMINSTER, Somerset (Dillington House, very nice too!) When: 13th December 2012 (Thursday) Who: Me, thee n hopefully many more. How much: £186 (£155+VAT) or £114 (£95+VAT) if you're an AA member. See Risk Assessment for Commercial Arboriculture for further info. Hoping to see you there.. Paul

Oak Mazegill maybe (Daedalea quercina???)

Hi Henri, As 'Mr Shutler' ("thank you John, hope yer well!") has pointed out the standards are 'further down' the Become an ARB Approved Contractor page but, for ease, I have attcahed a copy below. There really shouldn't be anything in there to give cause for concern, but please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any (concerns) or questions. Also, as a small business contractor, if you can get the support of your LA Tree Officer, or equivalent, and they are prepared to 'nominate' you, you could access this promotion and possible save yourslef the £495(+VAT) initial assessment fee. Thanks for your enquiry n hope to 'hear back' soon. Cheers.. Paul SchemeStandardsUpto5-161111v8-4.doc

Hi 'quick reply', sorry! i have seen many with both CS40&41 attained at the same time, i.e. they did the pruning assessment prior to the dismantle/rigging. May need a 'flexible and cooperative' assessor but I beleive it can be done. If not, and provided you have good pruning skills anyway (and to be quite honest, and it doesn't make me happy, many arborists either don't or very seldom get chance to display them anyway coz street tree 'pollarding' etc.) then CS41 would be a better 'career' move. In sourcing a trainer, if you're gonna do the training beofrehand (not compulsary), then make sure they are current and aware of HSE Rigging Research doc. (see RR668: Evaluation of current rigging and dismantling practices used in arboriculture) by asking them what 'standards' they use, alongside NPTC assessment criteria whihc is a minimum requirement, and check out what kind of kit they have / use. Good luck, n enjoy! Paul PS HSE view is that CS41 is, in effect, mandatory for those undertaking dismnatling and rigging operations.

Hi Melanie, Coming at it from a differnt angle, perhaps no surprise a 'H&S' one, there are specific requirements / 'duties' on employers relating to pregnant ladies, in particular to develop a specific risk assessment (see HSE: New and expectant mothers - The law) and in so doing I'm pretty sure it would come out with a conclusion of "no climbing", regardless of how well or confident you felt. If that was the case, and you proceeded to climb without your employers knowing and, 'God forbid', something untoward did happen, there may well be problems in trying to claim on the EL insurance, or indeed personal accidnet. Doubtless some will be dismayed at my repsonse here, and to be honest I quite understand why ("nanny state" n "bl**dy elf n saftee" etc.) but I think it's importnat you are in possession of all the facts to allow you to make an informed decision...whatever that may be. Take care n 'good luck' with everything. Paul

Has the nose bleed stopped yet? Hope you're well Ed. Paul

I would suggest anywhere 'north' of the Midlands, but, in all honesty, I'm not sure at this stage we, at Head Office, could readily facilitate activities in Scotland (not least as there is a fairly active 'Scotland Branch' anyway see Scottish - SC Branch - - Arboricultural Association.) Just my thoughts..thanks for responding. Paul

Arguably, once the landowner has been 'informed' by the LPA (Local Planning Authority) that the actions of vehciles passing over the roots is causing damage, and I would suggest 'direct damage' such as root bark scuffing / removal / breakage, then any subsequent 'damage' could be construed as 'wilful' and a prosecution could follow...possibly. I 'advise' the above as a precautionary not as a TPO expert by any means. Take it there's no altrenative site away from the TPO'd woodland, or in an area which would lessen the impact...just a thought. Paul

I'll adopt a "watching brief" here. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do respond tho...not least as I'd welcome any / every opportunity to revisit the homestead. Thanks all and look forward to seeing/hearing your responses. Cheers.. Paul

Morning Tony, hope you're well (sorry this one 'slipped under my radar' last week.) Quite, a very astute observation, which I share. Best.. Paul

Mark, very nicely 'summed up'...wish I had that skill, as I'm sure do many others:biggrin: Cheers.. Paul

"Watch out for them there bears now!"...oh and that 'Dothistroma' and that Great Spruce BArk Beetle and that Pine Weevil / Lappet Moth....no where's safe!!!! DOn't look up only down...n straight ahead.

Hi Mark, Hmmm, an interesting question you pose. Simplistically, 'the standard' for refresher training would normally be set by a recognised standards / training / assessing body, i.e. Lantra / City & Guilds (NPTC) / AA etc., as appropriate, and indeed refresher training can be delivered 'in-house'. The trouble is, if the 'proverbial hits the fan', proving it took place, when, what was covered, who dleivered it, why they wre competent, who received it, did they understand it etc. etc. (in other words this route can be fraught with difficulties and hence the LANTRA / NPTC etc. route is preferable.) With reagrds to CPD, this would, I think, be recognised as contributing towards keeping an operative current but wouldn't necessraily be veiwed as a suitable alterantive to actual refreshre training. The previous references to 'First Aid' training are interesting, and useful, but not, I would suggest, directly relevant. What I mean is, it is useful to do FA refreshre training every 18 months I would suggest, i.e. 'mid-term' of your re-certification period, because (hopefully) you don;t use thos skills daily. However you do use the chainsaw daily and hence refreshing in that, 'per se', may not be really benefically, BUT doing so with a different application, i.e. larger trees or wind-blow, would. Hope this helps and 'alopogies' for my poor spelling and grammar as this reply is rather rushed. Cheers.. Paul PS IN direct answer to your question, it is the HSE or Judge who will decide at the end of the day whether your CPD was adequate as refresher training but I have some concerns...but I do encourage CPD, too!

Hi David, in all honesty I think the breif is very wide and general, i.e. to improve the 'business' of the Association, perhaps that is the key word and why they went for someone outside the industry but with proven business etc. skills. That said, and to contextualise what I've said, Karen is looking forward to working in the 'not for profit sector' and has a a considerbale and impressive skill set to bring to the party...so, much fun to be had. Now, in the nicest possible way, go and have family time...enjoy! Paul