Thanks Chris
I'm glad you've reported these things and am very relieved about what you
say.
It was ever thus that tree owners have had to show that they have taken
reasonable care with their trees.
The really important part though is this statement
<< A significant thrust of Richard Stead's argument was that it is not the
case that our risk management strategies should simply respond to the
current state of the law. By agreeing, as an industry, what constitutes
a reasonably practical tree risk management procedure we will shape
future decisions. The law will respond to us.>>
Now, I've yet to see anything that beats QTRA and I would like our industry
to recognise it as the benchmark.
If we do this we should be able to direct resources to refine and improve it
further and have a standard industry voice. Such a voice is hard to ignore.
A similar issue exists with tree valuation. For example, Highway Authorities
currently have to value their assets. They are open to input on the green
part of this asset but cannot engage with the industry. We will end up with
something that suits highways engineers rather than what is right.
I am frustrated that this industry has not yet been able to provide a
unified voice on such important matters.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Hastie [mailto:c.hastie@xxxxxxxxx.co.uk]
Sent: 04 September 2007 17:42
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: *** SPAM ***Re: The Poll case
On 04/09/2007 14:54, Simon Keenan wrote:
I was extremely disappointed by the judgement. QTRA clearly
progresses our industry and for the judgement to interpret it
"rough and ready" is a clear misrepresentation and to which I
would imagine that most registered QTRA users would strongly
disagree with.
There were some interesting points made this morning at conference by
Richard Stead, the barrister who represented the claimant in the case.
The Judge in the case *made no judgement* about the validity of QTRA,
nor about the level of inspection required. That the tree warranted a
'level 2' inspection was common ground and agreed by the experts. The
Judge merely accepted their advice, he made no ruling on it.
In effect, all he was called on to rule on was whether or not the fungus
would have been spotted by a 'level 2' inspection had one taken place.
In this respect the case is not, as Richard Stead put, "the stick of
dynamite" that much of the industry is assuming it to be. It is one
ruling on a limited issue and specific to the facts of that case. He
also mentioned another case, Corker v Wilson, in which he acted for the
defendant, in which the judge did not accept any notion that the Poll
case set a binding precedent.
Of course, there remain issues. Had the QTRA calculations been applied
correctly by the experts, would there have been any need for the judge
to reach a decision on whether or not a 'level 2' inspection would have
picked up the fungus, since an obvious implication would be that a
'level 2' inspection was not justified. But these issues have a bearing
only on the outcome of this one particular case, not on tree risk
management in general.
A significant thrust of Richard Stead's argument was that it is not the
case that our risk management strategies should simply respond to the
current state of the law. By agreeing, as an industry, what constitutes
a reasonably practical tree risk management procedure we will shape
future decisions. The law will respond to us.
--
Chris Hastie
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
