Ivan: 0:03

Hello and welcome again to the Bench Report, where we discuss recent debates and briefings from the benches of the UK Parliament, a new topic every episode. You're listening to Amy and Ivan. Our focus today is a really important parliamentary motion. It's about the need for official guidance on tree maintenance for local councils.

Amy: 0:24

And it's driven by, well, a truly catastrophic public safety failure, a preventable one.

Ivan: 0:30

To really grasp the urgency here, we need to talk about the tragic case of Chris Hall.

Amy: 0:35

Indeed. This happened in August 2020. Chris was just uh walking in the car's park in Wilmslow. He was killed instantly when a huge limb fell from a uh a very old tree, about 130 years old.

Ivan: 0:48

And the scale of it.

Amy: 0:49

Mm-hmm.

Ivan: 0:49

That limb weighed 22 tons.

Amy: 0:51

22 tons. It's hard to even imagine.

Ivan: 0:53

But the critical point here, the reason this sparked the debate, is the negligence involved.

Amy: 0:58

Absolutely. Cheshire East Council knew this tree was dangerous. They had been warned.

Ivan: 1:01

How so?

Amy: 1:02

Well, their own contractor, a company called ANSA Environmental Services, had assessed it because another limb had actually fallen about a year before Chris's death.

Ivan: 1:10

So there was a clear warning sign.

Amy: 1:12

A very clear one. ANSA recommended the tree should be crowned. Which means basically pruning back the top part, the canopy, quite significantly. It reduces weight, makes it less susceptible to wind, less likely for branches to fail.

Ivan: 1:27

But that wasn't done.

Amy: 1:28

No. Critically, no action was taken. And what came out later during the Health and Safety Executive investigation, well, it was quite startling.

Ivan: 1:37

What did they find?

Amy: 1:38

That Cheshire East Council had operated since it was formed back in 2009, so for 15 years, with no formal tree maintenance strategy whatsoever.

Ivan: 1:47

Fifteen years. No official plan for managing tree safety on public land?

Amy: 1:51

None. It's uh quite astonishing. It meant, effectively, that many trees could have posed risks that weren't being systematically assessed or managed.

Ivan: 1:59

And this failure led directly to that huge fine, didn't it? Half a million pounds.

Amy: 2:03

Yes. 500,000 pounds in November 2024. They pleaded guilty to breaching the Health and Safety at Work Act. But as you said, this wasn't just about one council's failure.

Ivan: 2:12

No, it exposed something much wider, a systemic issue.

Amy: 2:15

Exactly. The core problem debated in Parliament is that there's currently no statutory duty. Councils aren't legally required to carry out regular tree inspections on public land.

Ivan: 2:24

So it's voluntary.

Amy: 2:26

It's voluntary. And you can guess what happens when budgets get tight. Tree maintenance being non-statutory is often one of the first things to face cuts.

Ivan: 2:33

Which puts people at risk. We know it's not just an isolated incident.

Amy: 2:37

Sadly not. Nationally, the figures suggest around five or six people die every year from falling trees or branches in the UK. We've seen other recent incidents mentioned in places like South End on Sea, West Didsbury, Blackpool.

Ivan: 2:50

It highlights a real ongoing danger. So what's the proposed solution?

Amy: 2:55

Chris Hall's family, Fiona and Sam Hall, are campaigning for a new law, which they're calling Chris's Law.

Ivan: 3:01

And what would that involve?

Amy: 3:02

It seems quite practical, actually. It would require councils to maintain a register of high-risk trees.

Ivan: 3:08

How would they define high risk?

Amy: 3:10

Based on factors like location proximity to paths, roads, buildings, the species of the tree, and its age. The idea is to target inspections where they're most needed.

Ivan: 3:20

A targeted approach. Makes sense.

Amy: 3:22

And mandate regular inspections for those specific trees. It's designed to be manageable, cost-effective, and focused, and it clearly has public backing.

Ivan: 3:32

I saw the petition numbers. 35,000 signatures in just four weeks. That's significant support.

Amy: 3:39

It really is.

Ivan: 3:40

You know, when you think about that 500,000 pound fine Cheshire, surely preventive maintenance would be cheaper in the long run.

Amy: 3:48

That's a very strong argument the campaigners are making. Plus, technology can help now drones for visual checks, microprobes to assess decay internally. It can make inspections more efficient.

Ivan: 3:59

But the minister, in the debate, pushed back slightly, didn't they, pointing to existing guidance?

Amy: 4:04

They did. They mentioned guidance from the National Tree Safety Group, the NTSG. It's called Common Sense Risk Management of Trees, and it was updated just last year.

Ivan: 4:12

So guidance exists, but it's not legally binding.

Amy: 4:15

Precisely. This guidance recommends a system where tree owners, like councils, zone their tree stock.

Ivan: 4:20

Zone them.

Amy: 4:21

Based on how frequently people are near them, so you know, trees by a busy path or a school playground would be in a high frequency zone, needing more regular checks than trees deep in a rarely visited wood. It's risk-based.

Ivan: 4:34

So the framework is there, just not the legal teeth to enforce it.

Amy: 4:38

That seems to be the crux of it. But the minister also tackled the funding angle.

Ivan: 4:42

Ah, yes, the budget argument. Councils often say they don't have the money.

Amy: 4:46

Well, the minister noted that overall local government funding has actually increased. Using Cheshire East as the example again, they received a 6.6% cash terms increase in core spending power.

Ivan: 4:57

Incrudy.

Amy: 4:58

Crucially, most of that funding is unring-fenced, meaning councils have the flexibility to decide where to spend it. They could prioritize tree safety if they chose to.

Ivan: 5:08

So it becomes less an issue of no money and more one of where are the priorities.

Amy: 5:14

Exactly. It shifts the focus to internal decision making within councils.

Ivan: 5:19

Which brings us to a bit of an irony, doesn't it? The government is investing heavily in planting new trees.

Amy: 5:24

A record $116 million, which is great for the environment, obviously.

Ivan: 5:28

Aaron Powell But it highlights a potential disconnect. You're investing huge sums in planting new trees, yet perhaps not ensuring enough resources are dedicated to maintaining the existing mature ones until something goes wrong.

Amy: 5:42

That's a really important point. You need both. Planting is vital, but so is caring for the established tree stock, especially as it ages.

Ivan: 5:49

So where does this leave Chris's law? Is there any movement?

Amy: 5:52

Well, a potentially significant development is that the minister agreed to meet with Esther McVeigh, who is the local MP supporting the Hall family, and with Fiona Hall herself.

Ivan: 6:02

Discuss the proposed law.

Amy: 6:03

Yes. To discuss Chris's law and the way forward. That meeting suggests the door isn't closed. There might be a path towards strengthening the requirements on councils.

Ivan: 6:13

That's definitely something to keep an eye on. It makes you think, though, trees have fairly predictable lifespans, don't they?

Amy: 6:19

Generally, yes. Birches might live 50, 70 years, while oaks or sycamores can go on for 200, 300 years or more.

Ivan: 6:26

And we often know when large numbers of trees were planted, like after the World Wars, for example, records exist. So given that predictability, should reaching a certain age automatically trigger a mandatory inspection for trees on public land? Could age itself be a key factor in that high-risk register?

Amy: 6:45

That's a really interesting question. Should age alone mandate a check? It's certainly something for policymakers, and indeed local authorities themselves, to consider as they review their approach to tree management. A proactive, age based trigger, perhaps. Food for thought.

Ivan: 7:00

As always, find us on social media at bench report UK. Get in touch with any topic important to you.

Amy: 7:05

Remember, politics is everyone's business.

Ivan: 7:07

Take care.