Dorset Treeman

I have done a bit of research using various online sources (some more trustworthy than others) and have put this together in the hope of being able to use in a report. I was hoping some people more knowledgeable on law would kindly comment on how accurate and up to date this is or whether they feel something needs amending or has been omitted. Thanks in advance. Please be as critical as you like, I'm thick skinned and could really do with the help! Liability for Trees Owners, in addition to any person(s) responsible for the management of trees owe a duty of care to those who visit their land. The liability comes under civil and criminal laws: Civil Liability Owners and tree managers have a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of those (being any person who can be reasonably foreseen) who may come within the vicinity of a tree. The standard of care that is used for benchmarking purposes is that of the “reasonable and prudent landowner”. Breach of this duty of care may lead to action arising against the tree owner/manager under the tort of negligence. The tort of nuisance also dictates that land owners/managers have a similar duty of care to neighbouring land. The Occupiers’ Liability Act provides that person(s) with control over land (occupier) is obliged to take reasonable care such that any visitor (under the 1957 Act) or a trespasser (under the 1984 Act) will be reasonably safe, where the occupier knows of the potential presence of such people on their land and of the risk posed to them by features of the land such as trees. A higher standard of care is owed to a visitor than that to a trespasser. An even greater duty of care is owed to a child as occupiers must expect children to behave with less care than adults. Warning notices, warning of specific dangers posed by a tree (or trees) may be sufficient to absolve an occupier from liability in that they may, by such notice, have taken all reasonable care for the visitor’s safety in the circumstances. However, in general, warning notices should not be relied upon alone to protect against a danger as they may not exclude or restrict liability under the Occupiers’ Liabilities Acts resulting from negligence. Criminal Liability The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 places a duty on employers to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that employees (section 2(1) and members of the public (section 3(2)) and other persons such as self-employed people – section 3(3)) are not put at risk. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999: Regulation 3 requires employers and self-employed persons to make suitable and sufficient risk assessments regarding health and safety. Breaches of either the Act or Regulations can result in a criminal prosecution against the employer.

Sorry, not been on Arbtalk for several months. Thank you for all of your replies. The owner had previously applied to reduce the crowns of two ash trees that were adjacent to each other, to allow more light to the garden. The decision was to allow the reduction on one of the trees, but not the adjacent one (this one) on the grounds that it was more visible and a reduction would have a negative impact on the amenity. The client then decided if the tree could be crown lifted, that would allow light to the garden, albeit when the sun is low in the sky. As mentioned originally, this was refused on the grounds of two large pruning wounds on the same level. We submitted a further application to remove one of these branches, explaining that it was our intention to apply for removal of the second branch, if the tree shows good response to the pruning in the formation of callus tissues. We stayed how the finishing cut would be made and what time of year it would be done, to demonstrate that everything would be done to allow the tree to be able to cover the wound. This was approved and the branch has been removed. We will now monitor the trees reaction before deciding to apply to remove the other branch or not.

Sorry, not been on Arbtalk for several months. Thank you for all of your replies. The owner had previously applied to reduce the crowns of two ash trees that were adjacent to each other, to allow more light to the garden. The decision was to allow the reduction on one of the trees, but not the adjacent one (this one) on the grounds that it was more visible and a reduction would have a negative impact on the amenity. The client then decided if the tree could be crown lifted, that would allow light to the garden, albeit when the sun is low in the sky. As mentioned originally, this was refused on the grounds of two large pruning wounds on the same level. We submitted a further application to remove one of these branches, explaining that it was our intention to apply for removal of the second branch, if the tree shows good response to the pruning in the formation of callus tissues. We stayed how the finishing cut would be made and what time of year it would be done, to demonstrate that everything would be done to allow the tree to be able to cover the wound. This was approved and the branch has been removed. We will now monitor the trees reaction before deciding to apply to remove the other branch or not.

When I surveyed for the national forest inventory, to be classed as woodland an area of trees had to have greater than 20% canopy cover and be larger than half a hectare (minimum of 20m wide). I don't know if that helps?

Should've also made it clear that it the ash on the right. We reduced the ash on the left a year ago but were not allowed to refused to reduce the ash on the right at the same time by the same TO. Can't remember his reasons off the top of his head but was something along the lines of, it doesn't need it.

Aaarrrggghh. Not sure why image is on its side and cant seem to change it. Sorry!

Hopefully the photo is attached showing the 3 lower laterals. The smaller diameter one (lower left) was approved but the larger two above were refused.

I got this back from a local TO the other day. The tree is within an area TPO and Conservation Area. ;This part of the application was refused for the reasons: The points of attachment to the main stem of these two branches are at the same level. The removal of both branches would re sult in large wounds that woul d expose significant wound wood and therefore have potential to allow ingr ess of decay into the tree stem.' The application was to remove 3 lower large laterals from a mature ash to lift the crown. I know size of branch is important and diameter of stem but my thoughts are if a tree is healthy and the pruning cuts are right, wound wood isn't necessarily a problem so why refuse on 'potential' decay. I would love to hear the thougts of those more knoweldgeable and experienced than myself. I will try and find a photo to attach.

Kim at Cornish hardwoods near Camborne may be interested - http://www.cornwallhardwoodsupplies.co.uk/

I heard about 'peel and steal' on the same BBC news so googled it. It's worrying how quickly and easily they can get into vans!

Got the email today too. Seems they've been busy!

No problem

Well said that man

When I got robbed 18 months ago there were traces of blood at the scene due to glass that had been broken. I was told by the forensics that came out the the sample of blood they took probably wouldn't be tested due to the cost and the fact that even if they found a match, it only puts that person at the scene, but it doesn't actually prove they stole anything. Ridiculous.

Anybody own a jo beau stump grinder? Just wondered about realisability as I have just put my name to the new B24-100 when it arrives?

Hi Mark, they were selling these for £20 each at Abbottsbury Gardens.

I used pure mineral oil. Don't know if that was right but the people I gave them to are still alive! http://www.agtreeservices.co.uk/uploads/5/4/6/4/5464573/img-0447_1_orig.jpg http://www.agtreeservices.co.uk/uploads/5/4/6/4/5464573/img-0449_1_orig.jpg

I find the same.

No worries. Still have a few more sticks here waiting if you need them.

Liking that Mark. Shame you were messed around but I'm sure it will sell.

That looks the dogs dangleberries. I'm pretty new to making things out of milled boards and wondered if you could take photos of how you attached the top, and talk me through how you do the butterflies? Always keen to learn better ways of doing things. Love the resin addition too. Thanks in advance

That's shocking

Thanks - I haven't yet but I will if it doesn't sell quickly. There's a few people expressed an interest.

24 oak sawlogs for sale. Roadside, Dorchester (Dorset) with good artic access Total volume 25.048 m3 / 884.571 ft3 Mainly beam quality but a few better than that with one heavily burred. Please pm or email me on [email protected] for more details.

50m3 oak firewood in 8ft lengths available near Dorchester, Dorset. Cut last winter. Good artic access. Diameters range from 8cm to 65cm. £35 per m3 plus VAT PM me if interested please.