UKTC Archive

RE: Peer reviewed tree risk management Research Article

Subject: RE: Peer reviewed tree risk management Research Article
From: David Evans
Date: Feb 15 2021 16:32:14
Hi Jeremy

As a follow on clarification to the low occupancy = low risk question, 
because of the limitations in attachments on the UKTC.

Back in the day of your '1:10,000 time bomb' presentation.  You showed the 
attached image of small diameter deadwood in an Ash over a footpath, and have 
the following text in your presentation notes.

"Furthermore, because the path was used by the public, albeit infrequently, 
the combination of that use and the inevitable failure meant that the 
potential for harm was reasonably foreseeable."

You painted a picture of how, if the risk was realised and harm arose from 
deadwood falling, an expert witness could make a case for a claimant in the 

Is low occupancy in your risk frameworks some point lower than 'infrequent'?

Or is 'infrequent' the same as low occupancy, and you've updated your opinion 
on small diameter deadwood (or any sized tree and branch in any condition) 
causing 'reasonably foreseeable harm' on infrequently used woodland paths?


Acer Ventura

The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and
Stockholm Tree Pits

Attachment: Jeremy Barrell Low Occupancy Deadwood.png
Description: PNG image