British Standard for tree safety inspection - Call to arms

[C_Claycomb]

I just spotted this in the Times.
http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/article4176060.ece

An excerpt.

"Homeowners face having to pay a specialist to inspect their trees under a safety regime drawn up by one of Britain’s most respected watchdogs.

The British standard for tree safety inspection would require all trees to be checked by a “trained person” every three years, with a still more rigorous “expert inspection” by an arboriculturist every five years.

Tree owners will also be obliged to conduct a “walk-by” inspection themselves once a year.

The drive to make all trees subject to inspection is being led not by the Health and Safety Executive - which opposes the move - but by the British Standards Institution (BSI). Highly respected in the building and engineering industries, it is better known for its views on the composition of cement than on the health of trees. "

A spokeswoman for the BSI defended its decision to set standards for trees. “We issue standards in all sorts of areas, including businesses such as estate agents,” she said. “We hope to issue the standard early next year and everyone is able to comment on the draft up until July 31.”

Anyone wishing to comment on the draft standard can do so by visiting http://drafts.bsigroup.com/.

I for one can see that such a requirement for inspection could cause all sorts of problems with the end result being fewer trees everywhere. Imagine you are selling a house with a tree in the garden, its no longer just a question of the roots interfering with the foundations, shading and having to rake leaves. Now it will be a guaranteed financial liability for the new owner. Simple answer, cut down the tree. Same goes for people who have trees that they aren't particularly fond or bothered about, instead of just leaving them be, now they are going to be forking out to keep them, so why not just turn them into firewood and save the hassle.

I have a pet hate for bureaucratic oversight in general and am not all that fond of the Health and Safety, but in this case my views actually coincide with those of the Health and Safety Executive, who also think these plans are a bad idea. If you think this is a mad scheme, please make your feelings known to the BSI at the above link

 

[JonnyP]

It is so sad to see this once great country going down hill faster than a car off of beachy head. Once upon a time common sense was a good thing to have....

 

[hiraeth]

I think that the H&S brigade are going mad. I notice that the report quotes " The new British Standard would cover trees growing anywhere near where the public had access" So would that also include local councils, woodland trust and the forestry commision.
If it does go through i think it might be time to retrain as an arboriculturist, dont think they will be short of work

 

[IanM]

I am sorry I don't understand the problem. There has always been liability for trees on your property (have a look at your insurance policy) and for the councils the trees on public land.

All this standard does is delineate criteria as to what is an acceptable standard for having a look at your tree to see if it is safe or going to blow down on someones car in the next storm. Having a squint every ten years or so from the visiting tarmac layer is not acceptable and never has been.

In fact this should save trees as people will not cut them down just to save on the insurance. This gives them a route to discharge their liability by saying "I had it checked to the relevant BSI standard and thus can prove I have discharged my duty of care and so am not liable"

Of course there will be the idiots that read this the wrong way and say "there is a risk, the law says eliminate it". The law does not. The law, criminal and civil, only asks that you manage risk to a reasonable level, no more no less. A routine of competent inspection is enough. If there is no problem there is no problem, done.

Don't you have a professional check your car often enough to ensure it is safe?

 

[ANDYRAF]

I don't ride around in my trees, next we'll be responsible for the pollen count of the plants and bushes in our gardens and have to have a notice board by the gate giving the pollen count on a daily basis, this is red tape gone mad. they should be charged with first degree bureucracy.
Doesn't this also mean that land owners that allow camping in their woods would have to have the whole wood inspected.

 

[firecrest]

The gypsies come round once a year, inspect our tree and tell us what branches they could lop off for us for a fee. so Im covered

 

[addo]

I am sorry I don't understand the problem. There has always been liability for trees on your property (have a look at your insurance policy) and for the councils the trees on public land.

All this standard does is delineate criteria as to what is an acceptable standard for having a look at your tree to see if it is safe or going to blow down on someones car in the next storm. Having a squint every ten years or so from the visiting tarmac layer is not acceptable and never has been.

In fact this should save trees as people will not cut them down just to save on the insurance. This gives them a route to discharge their liability by saying "I had it checked to the relevant BSI standard and thus can prove I have discharged my duty of care and so am not liable"

Of course there will be the idiots that read this the wrong way and say "there is a risk, the law says eliminate it". The law does not. The law, criminal and civil, only asks that you manage risk to a reasonable level, no more no less. A routine of competent inspection is enough. If there is no problem there is no problem, done.

Don't you have a professional check your car often enough to ensure it is safe?

I agree, Its just a formal way of implimenting common sense.
Most tree owners need telling there trees are dangerous as they are unaware when they are even when its plainly obvious.
This policy is mainly applied in areas where there is a target to hit should the tree fail. You can have the worlds worst tree but if it cant hurt persons or property then theres no problem. Nothing annoys me more than being called out in the middle of the night to clear an 80' Ash that has been at risk of falling over a road for years and the owner did nothing, even when advised. The owner could have pollarded it maintaining it in the landscape and promoting wildlife and not destroying all the hedgrows/trees on either side, or simply felled and replanted.
Very few people will fell a tree when you tell them they have to pay for it.

 

[Mikey P]

This is awesome!

I'm training to become an arborist (tree surgeon) and this is fantastic news!

Bring on the bureaucrats, I say!

 

[robin wood]

The new British Standard would cover trees growing anywhere near where the public had access" So would that also include local councils, woodland trust and the forestry commision.

I think you will find all three of those already have a tree inspection regime very similar to the BSI proposal and have done for many years. There are already various BSI standards applying to tree surgery, a standard for dead wooding for instance.

I am sorry I don't understand the problem. There has always been liability for trees on your property (have a look at your insurance policy) and for the councils the trees on public land.

All this standard does is delineate criteria as to what is an acceptable standard for having a look at your tree to see if it is safe or going to blow down on someones car in the next storm. Having a squint every ten years or so from the visiting tarmac layer is not "acceptable and never has been.

In fact this should save trees as people will not cut them down just to save on the insurance. This gives them a route to discharge their liability by saying "I had it checked to the relevant BSI standard and thus can prove I have discharged my duty of care and so am not liable"

I agree with the first point, well made. The second point has something in it but having conducted tree inspections myself and seen them done by others it is always easier to say "fell it" if in doubt. Why? well, if the tree is left standing and falls on someone next week there will be a court case and a competitor of yours will stand up in court and say "anyone competent should have seen it was dangerous." Once it is down and chipped there is no evidence left for someone to say, "it was fine why did you do that?". Then there is the point that most of the folk doing tree surveys are also offering to do the work, conflict of interests? I think so.

This is awesome!

I'm training to become an arborist (tree surgeon) and this is fantastic news!

Bring on the bureaucrats, I say!

Yep there has already been an explosion in work for folk doing tree surveys and it is very well paid and means you don't have to get sweaty up a tree with a chainsaw. The work is not driven by arborists but by lawyers and their work is driven by folk who make claims whenever they think they can get some money for free. In the end we all lose out by paying bigger insurance bills.

The BSI is not a regulatory body, they will not force anyone to do anything, there is no change in the law proposed. The current situation is if your tree falls on your neighbors car you are responsible for the damage. Trees falling on cars in car parks is the single most frequent insurance claim against the National Trust insurance policy (or it was 15 years ago when I worked for them). If there is someone in the car and a lawyer can prove that you were negligent you could be done for considerably more. That is why folk do tree surveys, simply to prove they were not negligent, all major landowners do them already and this is simply suggesting a standard system.

 

[Aaron]

Personally I do not think that it will lead to the spate of proactive 'felling' that everyone seems to predict. Any that occurs will be due to a failure of the landowner to understand the concept of what is 'reasonable' under civil liability. As long as the landowner can prove in court that they took 'reasonable' steps to implement a system of of safety inspection of their trees and in addressing any defects identified then a civil court would be satisfied. The standards of what is 'reasonable' would be assessed by the court - for example I attended a training course about two months ago on tree hazard inspection with a contracts/maintenance manager from a local NHS Trust who managed multiple sites with lots of trees - with his limited time, expertise and finances he could only be 'reasonably' expected to survey those with the most significant 'target area', for example those adjacent to car parking, housing, hospital entrances etc., which the court would recongise in the event of an accident. Even where defects are identified in a tree felling is only neccesary in the most extreme cases - just because a tree has a bracket fungi at its base does not mean that it needs to be felled immediatly, just that the trees health needs to be monitored more regularly. As with many things relating to property owenrship, all that this system requires is that land/ home owners take time to check up on what is expected of them under civil liability so that they do not get the wool pulled over their eyes. Also, more controversially, I also feel that people need to trust the civil courts more - for all the finger pointing and cries of 'no common sense' in crap papers like the Daily Mail what they gloss over is that the majority of civil law suits get thrown out in the first instance.