National Tree Safety Group Guidance – a response

No-one was hurt, but the road was closed for a day and the bridge damaged. So unlikely to make it onto the data used by NTSG.

The National Tree Safety Group (NTSG), as I am sure you are aware, are a self appointed group that  have produced, arguably, the most important guidance to affect Arboriculture in some years. Reading through the meatier (of the three documents) “Common sense risk management of trees – Guidance on trees and public safety in the UK for owners, managers and advisers“, I slowly became concerned about the objectivity of the text and the general tone. The NTSG continually confirm that the risk of fatalities or physical harm, due to tree failure, are very low. I agree they are. But why doesn’t the NTSG mention damage to property (homes, out-buildings, cars), the inconvenience caused when roads are blocked, near accidents, cost and inconvenience of clearing up after tree failure?

The NSTG compare the 55 reported A&E cases due to tree failure per year against the vastly higher 262,000 cases caused by playing football. They choose not to mention that no family members have ever had watch their off-spring or parent be crushed to death in front of them when playing football. To quantify the outcomes of tree failure purely in numbers and ignore the severity of physical and physiological affects is to be non-objective.

This document is very important; it declares that “This document may be presented to a court for consideration as supporting documentation in any case involving death or personal injury caused by a falling tree or branch… This guidance can,… inform the court in the making of that decision”. It will be a far more useful document for the defence than the pursuer because it aims to stress the low risk throughout.

Now I don’t lightly criticize anyone’s work, but if the documents provide guidance they need to be objective throughout. I honestly don’t feel I read a balanced objective document. For example (and I realise the whole document needs to be read in context) the word “benefit(s)(ing)” is mentioned 117 times. Fatality is mentioned twice. Diseases, twice. Pathogen, not mentioned at all. Damage is mentioned 27 times, but mainly in the context of damage occurring to the tree. 

The NTSG have stressed the benefits of the tree greatly throughout. They also aim to educate the reader on just how decayed a tree can be and still be healthy. And yes we understand the loss of static mass can be of no concern to the vigour of the tree, but veteran trees can surely only develop safely in open areas, in populated areas it will be difficult to manage the decline of the tree safely.