A reminder of what is at stake

[Mesterh]

Let me put it another way, how would you feel if you owned 50 acres of woodland, with no public right of way.

 

One day the council comes along and puts a public footpath sign up which goes right through it.

 

All of a sudden, your 50 acres of woodland starts to cost you money.

 

You have to have Public liability insurance

Start a regime of tree maintainance and keep a record.

Deadwood all trees along the footpath, take out any DDD's

Keep up to footpaths, stiles and fencing

Put up signs

 

oh, and it robs woodland birds and bats of their habitat, one little thing people don't think about.

 

Your quiet enjoyment of your woodland could suddenly turn into a very expensive hobby. Especailly if you weren't a tree surgeon.

 

 

Yes fair enough if they just decide to put a footpath through your private wood then I can understand why you are pissed, and tbh I thought thats why

you disagree with managing woodlands

 

I'm not talking about managing a whole woodland I'm talking about maintaining a 'safe' path through a woodland so the public can enjoy it. OK it cant be made 'safe' but it should be maintained on at least some kind of 2-3-4 year cycle. Not just left so it becomes a danger to any one walking along a footpath that they think has been put there so they can walk through in reasonable safety.

[Dean Lofthouse]

I'm not talking about managing a whole woodland I'm talking about maintaining a 'safe' path through a woodland so the public can enjoy it. OK it cant be made 'safe' but it should be maintained on at least some kind of 2-3-4 year cycle. Not just left so it becomes a danger to any one walking along a footpath that they think has been put there so they can walk through in reasonable safety.

 

I think thats a fair comment, except if the public want to enjoy, then the public should pay for it to be maintained, the landowner might want habitat.

 

My woodland looks like world war II took place in it. Rootball piles dotted here and there, deadwood left, hangers left, split branches left and pegged open.

 

A health and safety nightmare but cracking habitat

[Mesterh]

I think thats a fair comment, except if the public want to enjoy, then the public should pay for it to be maintained, the landowner might want habitat.

 

My woodland looks like world war II took place in it. Rootball piles dotted here and there, deadwood left, hangers left, split branches left and pegged open.

 

A health and safety nightmare but cracking habitat

 

If its privately owned then too right the landowner should receive funds from someone or somewhere to help maintain it or they should be able to close it off to the public.

 

Although if you own a woodland you must be brusted.

[Bundle 2]

" Although if you own a woodland you must be brusted............"

 

People own woodland for many reasons I m sure ( as if u need a reason) Avoidance of inheritance taxation is one such incentive!

[shabz1978]

it was my understanding that as a land owner, you have a duty of care for anyone who uses your land? irrespective of whether they are invited or not? was vta not born of this?

[David oakman]

Yes you are right this is my understanding aswell. Tresspassers have rights i dont like it but they do. I risk assess trees on footpaths and where public walk but not any where not in the woods where they should not be but there is always someone walking in the woods and they say they are lost! but what would happen if a branch fell on them?

[Dean Lofthouse]

it was my understanding that as a land owner, you have a duty of care for anyone who uses your land? irrespective of whether they are invited or not?

 

This is exactly what I mean by how silly it gets.

 

What people need to do is realise that life is a risk, walking down the road is risky, you enter woodland on a windy day you are at risk, you must understand and accept that before you enter.

 

It's about time judges started putting their foot down and throwing some cases out, then billing the complainent the expenses.

 

Yes there are genuine cases, but I reckon a very large percentage of cases could have been avoided by taking a little more care, being a little more aware and watching where they are going.

[Bundle 2]

Dean said "My woodland looks like world war II took place in it. Rootball piles dotted here and there, deadwood left, hangers left, split branches left and pegged open......"

Ask to see the Arb Method Statement for the works if you feel it was badly executed.....

Without gettin' involved mate, I want to point out that there is quite a bit of policy that relates to this one issue. This is where you must direct your attention to address any grievances...

 

 

David said "there is always someone walking in the woods and they say they are lost! but what would happen if a branch fell on them?...."

It would never , in all liklihood, come to court. If it did, I'm betting that you will be not found liable.....

 

Dean said "It's about time judges started putting their foot down and throwing some cases out, then billing the complainent the expenses....."

I think you would be surprised at the number of so-called "cases" that get settled out of court...which to me is an altogether more elusive animal. In these cases, insurers will end up paying out for the wrong reasons, for weak cases perhaps, and oftentimes with arbitrary sums.....( ie, not like 1x leg = £X )

At least when a case gets heard, there needs to be some sort of coherent debate around issues of relevance, If not, it will dismissed and believe me, its not a cheap thrill to go to court.....

"Yes there are genuine cases, but I reckon a very large percentage of cases could have been avoided by taking a little more care, being a little more aware and watching where they are going. ..." And I presume that you are so freely able to express these views in this thread, about this one incident, whilst I might add, little is I think known publicly about the accident, because you clearly see that the woman is at fault....

[Amelanchier]

OR...

 

Designate more land as access land under the Countryside and Rights of Ways Act 2000.

 

"(2) In section 1 of the [1984 c. 3.] Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 (duty of occupier to persons other than his visitors), after subsection (6) there is inserted—

“(6A) At any time when the right conferred by section 2(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 is exercisable in relation to land which is access land for the purposes of Part I of that Act, an occupier of the land owes (subject to subsection (6C) below) no duty by virtue of this section to any person in respect of—

(a) a risk resulting from the existence of any natural feature of the landscape, or any river, stream, ditch or pond whether or not a natural feature, or

(b) a risk of that person suffering injury when passing over, under or through any wall, fence or gate, except by proper use of the gate or of a stile.

(6B) For the purposes of subsection (6A) above, any plant, shrub or tree, of whatever origin, is to be regarded as a natural feature of the landscape.

(6C) Subsection (6A) does not prevent an occupier from owing a duty by virtue of this section in respect of any risk where the danger concerned is due to anything done by the occupier—

(a) with the intention of creating that risk, or

(b) being reckless as to whether that risk is created.”

(3) After section 1 of that Act there is inserted—"

 

Makes sense to me.

[Bundle 2]

That would work......puts liability squarely back on LPA's tho' doesnt it? That means more trees, more work and more money.......

I think we can at least agree that amenity tree stock nationally is poorly funded.Underfunded infact. Compare it to the Forestry commission budget for example?