The pc is doing a topple test on head stones in the church yard

Question

Do the councillors doing the tests need to have passed any test them self to carry out this test or can anyone do the topple test can not find the answer anywhere

Answer 1

It would be necessary to demonstrate that the people undertaking the inspection have sufficient knowledge to undertake the work. There is a Ministry of Justice publication entitled "Managing the Safety of Burial Ground Memorials - Practical advice for dealing with unstable memorials" which provides useful guidance, including the following:-

"Visual and hand checks can be carried out by a person with a working knowledge of memorials and their defects, and/or good knowledge of the memorials in any burial ground, but those inspecting memorials need to be mindful of, and consider, the risks to their own health and safety. Hand testing is appropriate for many memorials, such as the modern, lawn type, as well as smaller stepped designs or tiered crosses. Much larger, heavier memorials, such as older columns or obelisk types, may require an assessment by a specialist engineer or competent memorial mason."

The guidance states that:-

"The hand check can be carried out by standing to one side of the memorial and applying a firm but steady pressure in different directions to determine to what degree if any the headstone is loose. If some instability is detected following the hand test, a judgment must be made as to whether this movement is limited, or whether there is sufficient movement for the memorial to present a high risk to people’s health and safety."

That judgment would need to be sufficiently robust to stand up to examination in a court of law. Personally, I'd steer well clear and leave it to the experts.

Comments

It is ironic in that this is the subject of an objection  I have made.  If they are responsible for maintenance then a PC has a responsibility under the Occupiers Liability Act ( and H and S) to ensure that Monuments etc are safe.   What  happened in our case was that they employed the same stonemason to survey and carry out the work.  Their report listed everything from  the most obscure faults to perhaps one major issue (a total of 40) and our clerk said "do the lot" .  When I queried the categories of faults listed with a national stonemasons chain they replied "and that's why we don't do any work on surveys we undertake" .  So the moral of the story is get one stonemason to do the survey and be sure they know the specification and another to do the work. As DTC says the MOJ paper is a good starting point . Insurance is of course optional

---

We have the same dilemma with trees. Ask a tree surgeon if a tree needs felling and his answer will be based upon how busy he is rather than the condition of the tree!

---

Whenever we ask for an expert report on anything, we try to ensure that any work identified is actually carried out by another contractor but in practice that can be easier said than done particularly for very specialised work.  However, We did recently have an incident when a tree dropped a branch and the arborist who completed a safety survey a month earlier missed that the entire tree was rotten.  Now pursuing a claim against his professional indemnity insurance!

---

In relation to DtC's tree issue, what you actually need is a 'reputable' tree surgeon with a sound basis of arboricultural knowledge such as the LANTRA Professional Tree Inspector certificate or Qualified Tree Risk Assessor (QTRA) or VALID experience.

The complexity of the situation and the attitude / awareness of genuine tree risk management / risk tolerance of the risk owner (the town or parish council) is what should drive the question of how and when intervention is appropriate.

There is an obvious potential issue with asking the person who could likely undertake the work what their opinion is because there is the potential (for the uneducated and / or unscrupulous) to provide answers which suit their own purpose rather than the genuine biodiversity objective.

There is some good background guidance in this document:  https://cdn.forestresearch.gov.uk/2011/12/fcms024.pdf

although even that fails to properly grasp genuine risk principles which are much better explained and defined by the VALID system of tree risk analysis.

The simple reality is - anyone that is excessively concerned about generic tree risk should NEVER take to the highway since they are at much greater risk of injury or harm by driving than they will generally be from trees.

PS - I'll have a look at your trees for you if you want

---

It never ceases to amaze me the number of trees along side highways that are half overcome with ivy and when you suggest a review the biodiversity argument is put forward. How more people are not killed by falling trees amazes me .  Still a bit off top .  It is nevertheless a fact that PCs often get ripped off whereas it  always a Councillor job to ensure they get VFM but how many do practice this  ?

---

It is literally vanishingly rare that ivy would be of such significance to even register as a hazard in relation to trees.
Conversely, it is of paramount importance as a late source of nectar.
That it never ceases to amaze you that ivy and trees have a symbiotic relationship should actually be the source of a high degree of confidence and reassurance that the 2 exist perfectly well without the need for human intervention.
You see many trees with ivy (apparently) - since they are (presumably) standing up rather than laying down is testament to the absence of actual detriment.

---

RAG I have also seen many ivy laden fallen trees . It has always been explained to me that the ivy and the tree compete for the two same things i.e. light and water  and that eventually the ivy will prevail .  But I know as our late queen said "opinions may vary"

---

It’s a symbiotic relationship - as is natures way. Deciduous trees which are genuinely overburdened by ivy may retain more wind sail than ideal through Winter storms but unless the ivy has extended to the full extent of the crown it is unlikely to create a structural failure.
As to competition, that really is more of a human construct overlaid into the natural world where it has less relevance.
The tree - and the ivy - will grow to the extent of the resources available to sustain them. It would perhaps be better considered as ‘sharing’ rather than competing since nature has its own ways of divvying up the available resources. Humans - less so ):0)