IS THIS BARKING?
Controversial health and safety rules could see thousands of trees, where the public have access, chopped down unnecessarily say Landscape Planning Ltd.
UNDER draft safety guidelines drawn up by the British Standards Institution, every tree in the country would have to be inspected by a ‘trained person’ every three years and by an ‘expert’ every five years to make sure they do not pose a danger to passers by. Owners would also have to inspect every tree on their land at least once a year, the BSI said. A hazard to public health? Although trees and humans have lived side by side for thousands of years, the BSI is recommending a yearly inspection. But the Government’s red tape tsar described the guidelines as unnecessarily bureaucratic and costly, and warned that they would lead to the destruction of thousands of healthy trees. The BSI, an independent standards
body, currently has 27,000 standards, covering everything from the size of rivets to accountancy. It makes money by selling the standards to companies and organisations and then inspecting them to make sure they are following its rules.
The decision to draw up standards
for trees follows concerns about Britain’s growing compensation culture.
In 2006, motorcyclist Gary Poll claimed against a landowner after he was injured in a collision with a fallen ash tree in the road. The judge ruled that the accident could have been avoided if the owners -Viscount and Viscountess Astor of Morley - had called in an expert to check the tree. Although the BSI’s standards are not legally binding, a landowner that doesn’t meet them could be vulnerable in a similar court case. The recommendations come despite the low risk of injuries from trees. Around six people are killed every year by falling trees while some 640 people die each year from falling down stairs. Rick Haythornthwaite, chairman of the Risks and Regulation Advisory Council, a body set up by Gordon Brown to challenge pointless red tape, said the rules were too strict. “The draft standard has been put together by a rather narrow group of aboriculturalists and tree surgeons who stand to gain from its adoption, while the potentially enormous costs would have to be met by tree owners,” he said. “The risk from trees has not increased. We believe the existing legal principle effective for the last 60 years is sufficient. This is a perfect example of how the pressure to regulate in order to minimise public risk can lead to wholly undesirable outcomes if left unchallenged.” Errol Taylor, deputy chief executive of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, said: “It makes sense to have standards for looking after trees, but the idea of stipulating that you
The decision to draw up standards for trees follows concerns about Britain’s growing compensation culture
must get a tree inspected on a three year cycle is probably over the top, especially for organisations like the National Trust or the Forestry Commission.” Tree lovers are increasingly concerned about the threat to trees. Around 40,000 trees have been chopped down in London alone since 2003, many because of fears of health and safety claims. Tree surgeons rarely charge to inspect a tree. However, if call outs became routine, they are likely to charge around £70 a visit. Under the current health and safety rules, trees do not have to be inspected if the risk of death is less than one in one million each year. A spokesman for the BSI stressed that the standard was still out for consultation and would never be legally binding. “We are not suggesting that everyone goes out and buys the standard,” he said. “But, people who have a tree in their garden and want to understand what their duty of care is can at least get an idea of what the standard is.”
Annual death statistics: • Lightning - 3 • Trees - 6 • Travelling on a bus or coach - 19 • Drowning in a bath - 30 • Run over by a train - 37 • Falls from ladders - 49 • Falls from beds - 86 • Cyclists - 146 • Drowning - 350 • Fires - 491 • Falling down stairs - 641 • Car passenger/drivers - 1600
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140