Tree Health & Safety Assessment — Ropes Course Anchor Trees, Cheshire
Client: The owner of a country estate in mid-Cheshire, with the site occupied by an independent school.
Project Overview: A low ropes course had been installed into a group of 25 mature sycamore, using drilled through-bolt fixings, steel cable runs and bolted timber platforms. The installation had been completed without any arboricultural baseline assessment, without design criteria for tree suitability, and with no anchor tree inspection regime in place. Urban Tree Management NW Ltd was instructed to assess the condition of the trees and establish that baseline.
Our Role: A detailed ground-level tree health and safety assessment of the full sycamore group, recorded as G001 — 25 trees between 10 and 15 metres in height with stem diameters from 200 to 650 millimetres. The assessment covered physiological and structural condition, the mechanical implications of the installation on individual anchor trees and on the group as a whole, decay organism screening, biosecurity, and the allocation of duty between landowner and occupier.
Findings & Recommendations:
- Group recorded in Fair physiological and Good structural condition, and assessed as capable of carrying the installation subject to monitoring
- No arboricultural baseline had existed prior to this assessment, and no anchor tree inspection regime was in place
- One tree presents a significant included union between 0.8 and 1.2 metres, with fixings above and below the union so the load path crosses it at its weakest point — a rigid steel cable brace at approximately 3.0 metres recommended, to BS 3998:2010, installed by someone competent in arboricultural support systems
- Coupling multiple stems with static steel cable alters the dynamic behaviour of the whole group, including stems carrying no equipment
- Cryptostroma corticale positively excluded on site, with the respiratory health rationale recorded given the school setting
- No biosecurity provision found within the installer's risk and method statements, contrary to Arboricultural Association Guidance Note 2
- QTRA considered and positively recorded as not triggered
- Reinspection set at 12 months rather than the 24-month institutional default
- Lease review recommended to establish where tree management responsibility sits between landowner and occupier
Outcome: The site now holds the arboricultural baseline the installation had been operating without, together with a defined reinspection regime, a recorded position on the included-union tree, and a clear statement of the duties falling to landowner and occupier. The report deliberately certifies nothing about the equipment itself — it addresses the condition of the trees only.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do trees carrying ropes courses or play equipment need arboricultural assessment?
Yes. Equipment installed into living trees depends entirely on the trees remaining structurally sound. Most equipment inspection regimes require that a current arboricultural assessment of the anchor trees exists — the equipment inspection checks the equipment, not the tree.
Does an equipment installer's inspection cover the trees?
Generally not. An annual equipment inspection typically confirms that a current arboricultural assessment is in place and that the trees have been judged capable of carrying the installation. Without that assessment, the equipment inspection has nothing to rely on.
Can equipment be safely installed into trees?
Often yes, subject to the trees being assessed as capable of carrying it and to an ongoing inspection regime being established. The problem is rarely the installation itself — it is the absence of a baseline against which future change can be measured.
How often should anchor trees be inspected?
It is a professional judgement based on the condition of the trees and the nature of the installation. On this site the interval was set at 12 months rather than the 24-month institutional default.
Do you inspect the equipment as well as the trees?
No. Equipment inspection against BS EN 15567 and related standards is a separate discipline requiring separate competence. Our reports address the condition of the trees only, and say so explicitly.
Landowner and Occupier — Who Holds the Duty
The site is owned by one party and occupied by another. Where that is the case, duties in respect of tree safety may fall on both: the landowner holds ownership of the trees and the associated duty in negligence, while the occupier holds the duty to visitors under the Occupiers' Liability Acts 1957 and 1984 by virtue of its control of the premises.
How that responsibility is allocated between them is a matter for the lease, and not something an arboricultural consultant should opine on. The report flags the split, recommends the lease is reviewed to establish where responsibility sits, and recommends the report is shared with the occupier so that it is informed of the findings.
