A reminder of what is at stake

[Andy Clark]

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?

 

 

Annual budget DCLG = £250,000†

Forestry Commission = £82,344,000

 

Number of full time equivalent staff employed DCLG = 6

FC = 592

 

Number of staff (FTE’s) employed specifically to deal with forest policy/strategy. DCLG = 0

FC = 7 (although these are now employed by DEFRA)

 

Staff employed in research DCLG = 0

FC = 278

 

Annual research budget DCLG = £60,000

FC = £13,600,000

 

Figures taken from 'The case for a Tree Commission: J Flannigan 2007'

 

The case for a Tree Commission

[Amelanchier]

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?

 

How does it put liability back on the LPAs? On Access land - there is no such liability provided the landowner has not created a hazard deliberately or recklessly.

 

Doesn't override common law duty of care to neighbours but it does explicitly legislate for the acceptance of risk from trees.

 

I personally think its a good model to expand.

[Amelanchier]

Figures taken from 'The case for a Tree Commission: J Flannigan 2007'

 

The case for a Tree Commission

 

Yep. Not so much a case as an undeniable truth!

[Dean Lofthouse]

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.....

 

 

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....

 

My woodland is intentionally left like WWII took place in it, as I want my woodland is primarily habitat for wildlife and bugs , but inherantly, leaving habitat can lead to hazards for humans.

 

I am generalising about the claim culture when expressing my veiws Bundle, I'm not passing judgment on this particular case.

 

The claim culture at the moment is one thing that winds me up to the point of stressing me out, that and ignorance

[Bundle 2]

Tony said "I personally think its a good model to expand. ....."

Certainly looks like it.....

[Dean Lofthouse]

 

Doesn't override common law duty of care to neighbours but it does explicitly legislate for the acceptance of risk from trees.

 

I personally think its a good model to expand.

 

..and so do I.

[Amelanchier]

Er did we all just agree on something?

 

Nah, that can't be right...

[Dean Lofthouse]

Er did we all just agree on something?

 

Nah, that can't be right...

 

It appears so, we just need Mesterh to stick his tuppence in and we can close the thread

[Andy Clark]

How does it put liability back on the LPAs? On Access land - there is no such liability provided the landowner has not created a hazard deliberately or recklessly.

 

Doesn't override common law duty of care to neighbours but it does explicitly legislate for the acceptance of risk from trees.

 

It puts the liability (perhaps onus is a better word) back on the LPA, as under the Dept for Communities and Local Govt, they are the primary portfolio holder for responsibility of "AMENITY" trees. The unfortunate point in all of this, is that each and every LPA is allowed to draw up it's own strategies, rather than operate under one blanket set of rules. (Consider how long it's taken for LPAs to adopt Planning Portal etc, despite it being put in place by the DCLG!)

 

'Government might argue that DCLG meets amenity tree needs primarily through its policy that tree strategies are best if they are prepared locally. I think this really means that the Government favours woodlands and this policy keeps Arboriculture at arms length and avoids the need to foot any related costs.'

 

'The significant difficulty in expecting Local Authorities to lead on amenity tree management through the preparation of local strategies is that core information is not available. There is simply not enough UK orientated data to support these strategies and it is unrealistic, and unfair, to expect Local Authority Tree Officers to collect the necessary information.'

 

Taken from The case for a Tree Commission: J Flanningan 2007

 

 

 

Until such time that there is a clear cut definition, when it comes down to "responsible" tree management by particular parties/groups/owners/landowners, all anyone can do is utilise whatever documents/guidelines/court rulings are in existence (HSE SIM 01-2007-05, Poll vs Bartholomew, Atkins vs Scott, Chapman vs Barking & Dagenham LBC etc) and do all they can to ensure that ALL possible aspects of criminal and civil law are covered.

 

 

In short, this would equate to....

 

.... A system must be in place to ensure that trees are to be surveyed/inspected/managed according to their level of ascertained risk, by persons whose qualifications/competency corresponds to that particular risk level.

[bob]

No..

 

We now have to carry out a risk assessment on our shoot (3500 acres), if I deem it too dodgey to go into woodland

 

 

So you do do risk assessments

WELL DONE:001_smile: