A reminder of what is at stake

[Amelanchier]

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.

 

Nice summary there Andy but my point related to CROW 2000 overriding the Occupiers Liability Acts in terms of tree related hazards on designated Access Land.

 

I fail to see how any of the legislation places any onus/responsibility/liability on the LPA or the DCLG in such cases.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Amelanchier

[Bundle 2]

Andy said..."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...."

 

I dont want to derail the thread and get onto inspections again...(.the point I am avoiding is made by andy in the above quote).....Essentially tho' i think there is no act that can void liability.

'LPA, as under the Dept for Communities and Local Govt, they are the primary portfolio holder for responsibility of "AMENITY" trees."

[Bundle 2]

So then you end up with holes in liability legislation...

Your point is well made Tony....If you look at the wording it seems to imply no further "onus" on the landowner....

Liability must lie somewhere..and usually only where owners are negligent (or wreckless) in the first place....the reason for this thread if Im not mistaken!!

Im gonna have to look in Mynors....Could be good!

Edited June 19, 2009 by Bundle 2

[Mark Bolam]

How much legal protection would a disclaimer notice get you, erected outside the woodland? Enter at your own risk type thing.

[Bundle 2]

On a public right of way..? Absolutely none imo...I might just think you were a lazy git trying to circumnavigate legislation...!

 

( oh but thanx 4 the warning...)

[Dean Lofthouse]

So you do do risk assessments

WELL DONE:001_smile:

 

We also carry a comprehensive first aid kit, radios and grid reference cards for different locations around the estate, morning safety brief and have a paramedic to hand

 

I carry out risk assessments every day at work Bob, and that RA gets re-evaluated every few minutes, thats the beauty of not having a written risk ass, I'd go through reams of paper otherwise

 

Did one today and everything changed when the wind direction changed, simple re-assessment, back to work...."simples" (as SWB would say)

[Mesterh]

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

 

I'll agree to that

[Dean Lofthouse]

I'll agree to that

 

yeeeaaahhh !!

[Yorkshireman]

Gents we can have as much legislation as we like ..... lawyers love the stuff

they are after all the only ones who get money regardless of who actually wins or who more importantly is right, a fact often lost in legal argument,where words & interpretation of words play more of a role, somewhere enroute common sense has been replaced by £££££

 

After all our Mps are right according to their rules , but ..... !

 

a sad state of affairs all round in my book

[Andy Clark]

Nice summary there Andy but my point related to CROW 2000 overriding the Occupiers Liability Acts in terms of tree related hazards on designated Access Land.

 

I fail to see how any of the legislation places any onus/responsibility/liability on the LPA or the DCLG in such cases.

 

Don't get me wrong, i may be mistaken, but surely the LPA AND DCLG (by implication) are the responsible forces behind upholding and ensuring compliance with CROW 2000?

 

Therefore, should the onus not come down to them, to issue guidance/info/advice on how best to comply??