UK | Mandatory tree inspections | Draft regulation open for comment

Eric Frei · 20th June 2008, 07:30 PM

Pushed by BSI not HSE mandatory tree inspections.

Plans to check safety of all garden trees will cost homeowners dear - Times Online

Quote:

Plans to check safety of all garden trees will cost homeowners dear

From The Times
June 20, 2008

Homeowners face having to pay a specialist to inspect their trees under a safety regime drawn up by one of Britain’s most respected watchdogs.

The British standard for tree safety inspection would require all trees to be checked by a “trained person” every three years, with a still more rigorous “expert inspection” by an arboriculturist every five years.

Tree owners will also be obliged to conduct a “walk-by” inspection themselves once a year.

The drive to make all trees subject to inspection is being led not by the Health and Safety Executive - which opposes the move - but by the British Standards Institution (BSI). Highly respected in the building and engineering industries, it is better known for its views on the composition of cement than on the health of trees.

Its proposals come despite the low risk posed by trees to the public. On average six people a year are killed by falling trees, making the probability of a fatal accident less than one in two million. This compares with 647 deaths from tripping down stairs or steps.

Under the health and safety principles that have governed trees for 60 years, the risk they pose is “tolerable”, and no inspection regime is necessary if the probability of death is less than one in one million each year.

But the BSI was prompted to act after several legal cases appeared to challenge the existing regime. In 2006 Gary Poll, a motorcyclist, collided with a fallen branch on a road in Somerset and made a claim against the landowners. The judge ruled that if arboriculturists had been called in, the accident could have been averted.

But critics say that the BSI is overreacting and fear that a tree standard would spawn a new industry of tree inspection - a bonanza for arboriculturists but extra cost for homeowners, local authorities and landowners.

Many tree surgeons do not currently charge to inspect garden trees because it normally leads to work. Tree Care, a company in West London, is typical. It does not charge for inspections and quotes but the charge for the most basic work is £160. However, some companies who work for large landowners do offer an inspection service. Prices start at £300.

However, those consulted by The Times yesterday said that if they were being called out for numerous routine inspection visits they would have to charge about £70 a time, or more if they had to climb the tree.

The tree standard is currently a draft, subject to public consultation, but many tree owners are not sure how to make their views known.

The new British Standard would cover trees growing anywhere near where the public had access, or within falling distance of man-made structures such as other properties. It also covers areas where “branch shedding or whole tree failure could potentially cause severe harm or loss of life”.

A recently established risk watchdog, charged with halting the march of the “nanny state”, has intervened to try to get the BSI to think again. The Risk and Regulation Advisory Council said that the level of risk posed by trees did not warrant a national inspection regime.

“The risk from trees has not increased. We believe the existing legal principle effective for the last 60 years is sufficient,” Rick Haythornthwaite, the council’s chairman, said.

“This is a perfect example of how the pressure to regulate to minimise public risk can lead to wholly undesirable outcomes if left unchallenged.”

He also accuses “risk entrepreneurs” in the tree industry for seeking regulation to maximise the perception of risk. “The result is a set of standards for which they are perfectly placed to provide profitable solutions,” he said.

A spokeswoman for the BSI defended its decision to set standards for trees. “We issue standards in all sorts of areas, including businesses such as estate agents,” she said. “We hope to issue the standard early next year and everyone is able to comment on the draft up until July 31.”

Anyone wishing to comment on the draft standard can do so by visiting Draft Review System

Sean Freeman · 20th June 2008, 07:52 PM

Quote:

The Risk and Regulation Advisory Council said that the level of risk posed by trees did not warrant a national inspection regime

Darn right it doesn't...!

Quote:

In 2006 Gary Poll, a motorcyclist, collided with a fallen branch on a road in Somerset and made a claim against the landowners. The judge ruled that if arboriculturists had been called in, the accident could have been averted.

There's much, much more to this case than the simplistic version of the ruling in the Times visit AIE website to read the court documents. I don't think this one case will form the basis of such a fundemental change...bit of a beat up by the press

The whole process by which this particular BS (brit standard!) is being drafted has come in for quite strong criticsm esp from Arbs over there.

Steve Tipton · 20th June 2008, 07:55 PM

Interesting...............
We'll see what eventuates here!

Eric Frei · 20th June 2008, 08:05 PM

Is this a better nutshell.

Quote:

Gary Poll was riding a motorcycle near Frome in Somerset when he collided with a fallen ash tree. The owners of the tree were the Viscount and Viscountess Asquith of Morley. Mr Poll said that the Asquiths were negligent in their care and management of the tree and that his injuries were the product of that negligence.

The tree in question was a multiple stemmed ash. There was structural defect in the tree namely an included bark union, otherwise called an included bark defect and a fugal bracket immediately beneath the stem which fell. There was a 40 knot wind on the day and the combination of these factors caused the stem to separate and fall.

The Asquiths had an independent forestry contractor to inspect their many roadside trees. The inspected carried out “drive-past” inspections. If he saw something wrong with a tree, he would get out of his car and make a closer inspection. But in relation to this particular ash tree, the experts before the court agreed that this tree demanded more than a cursory examination.

What level of tree inspector should have been used? Mr Poll said a Level 2 inspector was needed. They did not need the higher skills of a Level 3 expert, but the actual inspector reporting to the Asquiths was only Level 1.

Mr Poll and the Asquiths agreed that is was possible to categorise trees into risk categories. This multi-stemmed ash was a medium risk, until the fungal bracket came to be observed, where upon it was elevated to a higher risk.

Was there “a causative breach of duty” on the part of the Asquiths? The Asquiths’ own expert at the hearing said, “When trees such as ash grow back after cutting and produce multiple stems, they sometimes form what is known as “included bark unions” which are structural defects.”

The Asquiths’ court expert said that the drive-by inspector was good enough, but this claim did not sit well with his own argument about the risks of the tree. At the trial, both experts agreed that a competent inspector (by which they meant a Level 2 inspector) would have wanted to see what lay beneath the stem. The Asquiths’ witness conceded that a competent inspector, searching for disease, would have found this bracket. The witness said that a Level 2 inspector was needed, but the Asquiths had only provided Level 1.
Judgment in favour of the motorcyclist and against the landowners.

Sean Freeman · 20th June 2008, 09:41 PM

Not really Eric....there were and are some real clangers in this case, the evidence and the ruling, and thats not just my opinion.

At the time of the incident and there were no inspectors of any "level" it is a system of categories that is still being thrashed out today, so for this to be the crux of any ruling is truely bizarre.

The experts did not agree in the initial hearing, the expert witness for the defendant altered his statement in the joint statement provided to the court, after discussions between the two experts.

As I said the original court documents are all available to download at AIE website.....make your own mind up!

The crux for me is that no matter what "level" the inspector it is extremely unlikely that he/she would crawl around on their hands and knees to first locate then assess a fungal fruiting body hidden from plain view...esp when they are assessing all the verge trees along the roads of the estate in their drive to and from work...despite the regrowth being multistemmed.

AND lets not forget the tree was ON THE GROUND when he hit it!!!!

Eric Frei · 21st June 2008, 09:45 AM

Carport erecter contractor in Brisbane pulls up to do a job. Nothing new, same ole same ole.

Whips off his aluminium extension ladder and manages to hit the wires and gets electrocuted but lives, permanent disability burns two feet off.

Sues employer and wins $250K + costs for wires not being sheaved.

Never do they get sheaved anyway on any job but regardless that's the ruling.

Welcome to the real world, the fact the tree was on the road moves a % of liability elsewhere, same with an illegal parked car or other obstruction.

You drive down a road and hit a cow, you sue the owner for not fencing it in. That's the way it is. You hit wild life that's different because it's wild and free to roam.

Other places you hit the farmers cow you pay him for damage, but not in many civilized places.

Trees on private land within striking distance of a road must be thoroughly checked, a drive by is inadequate.

Take a look at the close miss on Gympie road when a huge bunya pine fell across 3 lanes of traffic 4pm one windy afternoon. No-one hurt due to a red light further down the road, could have been real carnage. Ask Rangitata about that one their company cleaned it up, big fruiting bodies sticking out of it way decayed.

People during the normal course of owning trees have an obligation to ensure it's reasonably sound, we all know that, however many dont care. The problem that arises is when neighbours etc are concerned and the tree owner refuses access or co-operation how are you to inspect the tree?

Some councils get involved and some dont. Perhaps some middle ground will be made where there can be a mandated report upon request or trees within striking distance of properties other than your own assessed. Either way it seems a forward move from the current dont give a shit attitude displayed by many tree owners. Then they may also give a shit about topping it creating further hazards.

Many councils dont have protection on trees and cowboys are still whipping the tops off.

Even if this doesn't go ahead in any capacity the exposure and reinforcement of a tree owners "Duty of Care" is great, they need to care.

Sean Freeman · 21st June 2008, 10:14 AM

Like I say the Poll case has loads of baggage that make it hard to view in a positive light (for me anyhow!). But to move off the specific case and look at the more relevant point you make about duty if care, and specifically the need to inspect.
The degree to which tree represent an involuntary exposure to risk of significant harm to the community is not high. Its certainly not high enough to justify the kind of changes in behaviour being enforced in the way being suggested by the Times article.

Owners of trees do have a general duty of care, that has always been the case and won't change. Where the targets under their trees are increased by the tree's proximity to a road/footpath/public space etc... it is important that some kind of basic management of the health of the tree is adopted.

I certainly don't dissagree that tree owners should be responsible for the long term management of their trees..they should, they should implement best practices in that management, not cheapest practice!

You're right LGA's can be a help in this by setting local standards, by encouraging recognition in the community the value of tree assets and the importance of proper management....but LGA's also have a lot of other forces driving their priorities and tree assets often get relegated to lower down the list.

What I have found is that the majority of tree owners I have met be they LGA, Schools or private, want to do the right thing, they don't want to loose all the benefits from their tree assets, they don't want others to be injured or inconvenienced by failures in their trees. There is a lack of understanding of tree biology, there is a lack of understanding of Arboricultural standards and benchmarks, many tree myths still abound. If you can afford to spend the time patiently working through the specific considerations appropriate for their trees, you can get to the position of providing best practice management to them.
Frustratingly all the hard work can be quickly undone when other contractors are envolved, or owners change etc...

Eric Frei · 22nd June 2008, 01:29 AM

Just what I suspected, a group of academic consulting arbs making jobs for themselves.

Next thing they'll try is up the price on education or make it hard to access to keep their competition away.

FT.com / Home UK / UK - Stricter rules on tree safety 'not necessary'

Quote:

Stricter rules on tree safety 'not necessary'

By Nicholas Timmins Public Policy Editor

Published: June 20 2008 03:00 | Last updated: June 20 2008 03:00

Huge numbers of trees could be chopped down unnecessarily damaging both Britain's environment and recreational space, the government's advisory council on risk and regulation warned yesterday.

The British Standards Institute is developing new rules on tree safety that will require more frequent and professional inspection of trees if those responsible for them are to ensure they are covered against negligence claims.

But Rick Haythornthwaite, chairman of the Risk and Regulation Advisory Council, said the requirements, which are out for public consultation, are too strict.

On average six people a year are killed by falling trees, he said, the number has not been rising and individuals face a one in 10m chance of becoming a victim.

The tougher standard - which would likely result in tens of thousands of trees being cut down as land owners decided they could not afford the cost of regular professional inspections - was being driven by what Mr Haythornthwaite dubbed "risk entrepreneurs".

He said: "The draft standard has been put together by a rather narrow group led by arboriculturalists and tree surgeons who stand to gain from its adoption, while the potentially enormous costs would have to be met by tree owners".

He urged the public to object to the draft standard. About 40,000 trees have been chopped down in London alone since 2003, he said, and even if new ones have replaced them, they absorb less CO 2 and suck up less water at a time when people have become more concerned about flooding.

"This is an example of how pressures to regulate public risks can often lead to wholly undesirable outcomes," Mr Haythonthwaite said. "A new standard is not necessary."

Sean Freeman · 5th July 2008, 10:32 AM

I know we don't have that many UK people who post but for those that might read only here is the rebuttle to the British Standard sillyness.......

The press release is from the Risk and Regulation Advisory Council (RRAC). For
those of you who don't know what they do, they advise the government on
matters of public risk. There's more detail on their website

Risk and Regulation Advisory Council - BERR

RRAC%20Trees%20Press%20Release%202008%20-%20Final.pdf

Eric Frei · 5th July 2008, 05:38 PM

Nice find Sean.

I like the last sentence.

Quote:

The public also needs to accept that a society cleansed of all risks is both undesirable and unachievable.

I wonder if we could substitute "society" for "workplace" though.

20th June 2008, 07:55 PM	#3
Steve Tipton Over mature heritage tree Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sydney Posts: 823	Re: UK \| Mandatory tree inspections \| Draft regulation open for comment Interesting............... We'll see what eventuates here! __________________ Heightmaster

20th June 2008, 09:41 PM	#5
Sean Freeman Monument Status Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Townsville Nth Queensland & Gold Coast Sth Queensland Posts: 1,985	Re: UK \| Mandatory tree inspections \| Draft regulation open for comment Not really Eric....there were and are some real clangers in this case, the evidence and the ruling, and thats not just my opinion. At the time of the incident and there were no inspectors of any "level" it is a system of categories that is still being thrashed out today, so for this to be the crux of any ruling is truely bizarre. The experts did not agree in the initial hearing, the expert witness for the defendant altered his statement in the joint statement provided to the court, after discussions between the two experts. As I said the original court documents are all available to download at AIE website.....make your own mind up! The crux for me is that no matter what "level" the inspector it is extremely unlikely that he/she would crawl around on their hands and knees to first locate then assess a fungal fruiting body hidden from plain view...esp when they are assessing all the verge trees along the roads of the estate in their drive to and from work...despite the regrowth being multistemmed. AND lets not forget the tree was ON THE GROUND when he hit it!!!!

21st June 2008, 09:45 AM	#6
Eric Frei Admin - Razor sharp and independent 2 X Diploma Level 5 qualified arborist Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,814	Re: UK \| Mandatory tree inspections \| Draft regulation open for comment Carport erecter contractor in Brisbane pulls up to do a job. Nothing new, same ole same ole. Whips off his aluminium extension ladder and manages to hit the wires and gets electrocuted but lives, permanent disability burns two feet off. Sues employer and wins $250K + costs for wires not being sheaved. Never do they get sheaved anyway on any job but regardless that's the ruling. Welcome to the real world, the fact the tree was on the road moves a % of liability elsewhere, same with an illegal parked car or other obstruction. You drive down a road and hit a cow, you sue the owner for not fencing it in. That's the way it is. You hit wild life that's different because it's wild and free to roam. Other places you hit the farmers cow you pay him for damage, but not in many civilized places. Trees on private land within striking distance of a road must be thoroughly checked, a drive by is inadequate. Take a look at the close miss on Gympie road when a huge bunya pine fell across 3 lanes of traffic 4pm one windy afternoon. No-one hurt due to a red light further down the road, could have been real carnage. Ask Rangitata about that one their company cleaned it up, big fruiting bodies sticking out of it way decayed. People during the normal course of owning trees have an obligation to ensure it's reasonably sound, we all know that, however many dont care. The problem that arises is when neighbours etc are concerned and the tree owner refuses access or co-operation how are you to inspect the tree? Some councils get involved and some dont. Perhaps some middle ground will be made where there can be a mandated report upon request or trees within striking distance of properties other than your own assessed. Either way it seems a forward move from the current dont give a shit attitude displayed by many tree owners. Then they may also give a shit about topping it creating further hazards. Many councils dont have protection on trees and cowboys are still whipping the tops off. Even if this doesn't go ahead in any capacity the exposure and reinforcement of a tree owners "Duty of Care" is great, they need to care. __________________ Protect your rights to work - Join Australian Tree Association My businesses:- Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane \| Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist

21st June 2008, 10:14 AM	#7
Sean Freeman Monument Status Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Townsville Nth Queensland & Gold Coast Sth Queensland Posts: 1,985	Re: UK \| Mandatory tree inspections \| Draft regulation open for comment Like I say the Poll case has loads of baggage that make it hard to view in a positive light (for me anyhow!). But to move off the specific case and look at the more relevant point you make about duty if care, and specifically the need to inspect. The degree to which tree represent an involuntary exposure to risk of significant harm to the community is not high. Its certainly not high enough to justify the kind of changes in behaviour being enforced in the way being suggested by the Times article. Owners of trees do have a general duty of care, that has always been the case and won't change. Where the targets under their trees are increased by the tree's proximity to a road/footpath/public space etc... it is important that some kind of basic management of the health of the tree is adopted. I certainly don't dissagree that tree owners should be responsible for the long term management of their trees..they should, they should implement best practices in that management, not cheapest practice! You're right LGA's can be a help in this by setting local standards, by encouraging recognition in the community the value of tree assets and the importance of proper management....but LGA's also have a lot of other forces driving their priorities and tree assets often get relegated to lower down the list. What I have found is that the majority of tree owners I have met be they LGA, Schools or private, want to do the right thing, they don't want to loose all the benefits from their tree assets, they don't want others to be injured or inconvenienced by failures in their trees. There is a lack of understanding of tree biology, there is a lack of understanding of Arboricultural standards and benchmarks, many tree myths still abound. If you can afford to spend the time patiently working through the specific considerations appropriate for their trees, you can get to the position of providing best practice management to them. Frustratingly all the hard work can be quickly undone when other contractors are envolved, or owners change etc...

5th July 2008, 10:32 AM	#9
Sean Freeman Monument Status Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Townsville Nth Queensland & Gold Coast Sth Queensland Posts: 1,985	Re: UK \| Mandatory tree inspections \| Draft regulation open for comment I know we don't have that many UK people who post but for those that might read only here is the rebuttle to the British Standard sillyness....... The press release is from the Risk and Regulation Advisory Council (RRAC). For those of you who don't know what they do, they advise the government on matters of public risk. There's more detail on their website Risk and Regulation Advisory Council - BERR RRAC%20Trees%20Press%20Release%202008%20-%20Final.pdf

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode