Any thoughts on this H&S wise please.

[Dominic Lee]

 

images need to be opened in a new tab for some reason.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Dominic Lee
cant get pics to display

[Stubby]

Pretty safe I would say

[Mat]

Pictures...

 

 

 

 

 

Pretty safe I would say

 

Yep, that pretty much sums it up!

 

What are your thoughts Dominic?

Edited March 17, 2016 by Mat

[Dominic Lee]

What are your thoughts Dominic?

 

I'm pretty unsure H&S/Legislation wise which is why I ask, to me it's safe for the time being I guess tho I thought the entire purpose of the bracing was that it's non-invasive? I feel pretty sorry for that oak especially if/when the wind picks up when it's got a number of other trees pulling against it. Hows that bore hole above a playground going to be doing in 1-2 years time? Surely this work can be done without drilling through a bunch of mature douglas?

[Mat]

H&S legislation wise, I would think it would need to be designed and constructed by people deemed 'competent', and I would think it would require periodic inspection by a competent person, following a programme drawn up, probably by the designer.

 

I think most H&S professionals would view the trees as just being trees.

[Dominic Lee]

I think most H&S professionals would view the trees as just being trees.

 

This is why I'v asked here. From an engineering point of view the bore holes and cuts would be structural flaws if say it was a skyscraper instead of a tree.

 

With the trees not all moving in a uniform way during high winds does the wire through the oak not act as a kind of saw?

 

How would the whole duty of care thing play out if the top broke out onto a play area full of children?

 

(cheers for getting the photo's working I will work out the embedding tomorrow)

Edited March 17, 2016 by Dominic Lee

[scottythepinetree]

This is bracing? If so and this is near a playground, it's basically an admission of liability that it was known that there was something wrong with the trees. If something were to go wrong, then the owner of the trees wouldn't have a leg to stand on. As a rule, it is inadvisable to brace trees beside areas with targets, much less a playground. Particularly if the bracing is makeshift and not designed by someone competent and willing to stand over the design.

[10 Bears]

it's basically an admission of liability that it was known that there was something wrong with the trees

 

This is an urban myth I'm afraid - there is no legal justification for this view. I had a conversation with a lawyer about this and the opinion given was that the owner of the tree who installed the bracing is not admitting guilt/liability to acknowledging there is a problem in the tree, they would simply be exercising proper duty of care to visitors to their site, and that by having active management in place, using an industry recognised technique, would be perfectly defensible.

 

He further suggested an analogy of wearing seat belts in cars. Suggesting that using the same logic all car manufacturers would be 'liable' of anyone getting injured in a crash - because they put seat belts there so they must know that driving a car is dangerous, yet they still encourage people to drive their cars...

 

I agree with your comments on not bracing in high target/high occupancy areas, though this should be decided on the basis of suitable management for the situation - not because of an unfounded fear of liability.

[Stubby]

So this is bracing not because there is a need for it from the trees point of view , just to support the play equipment ?

[Gary Prentice]

So this is bracing not because there is a need for it from the trees point of view , just to support the play equipment ?

 

That's my take on it from the photo's

 

The first photo looks ideal for 'clothes-lining' someone

Edited March 21, 2016 by Gary Prentice