By Local Democracy Reporter Daniel Mumby
Somerset Council will spend nearly £2.2m over the next four years looking after the county’s trees including ongoing efforts to combat ash dieback.
Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Highways Act 1980, the council has a legal duty to ensure that trees within its care (e.g. those on public roads and in parks) do not “pose an unacceptable risk to the public”.
The council has now awarded a new four-year contract to carry out necessary maintenance and reactive work at an estimated cost of £675,000 a year – the equivalent of £2,190,000 over the lifetime of the contract.
The contract will include additional work to combat ash dieback, which is now “widespread” across the county and requires significant intervention to prevent the disease from spreading further.
Paul Sweetman, the council’s service manager for highway risk, said, “We are responsible for the management of a large and diverse tree stock across our land holdings, including along highways, in parks, schools, and on other public properties.
“This responsibility includes carrying out routine maintenance to maintain tree health and structure, as well as responding to urgent issues such as storm damage and disease.
“The Chalara fungus, which causes ash dieback, is now widespread across
Somerset, leading to the rapid decline and death of a significant proportion of the county’s ash trees.
“This necessitates a proactive programme of felling and management to mitigate the risk of tree failure.
“The framework agreement is designed to procure specialist services for mechanised tree felling to tackle ash dieback, alongside routine tree surgery operations.”
Ash dieback has been a particular issue in the Quantock Hills, with residents having until New Year’s Eve to give their views on how this can be combated as part of the National Landscape’s new management plan.
The council has not publicly identified the chosen contractors for these works, citing commercial sensitivity.
Mr Sweetman said that it would not prove cost-effective to taxpayers to deliver these services entirely in-house, due to the fluctuating demand for the service over the course of a given year.
He said, “The significant investment required for specialist mechanised equipment (such as tree shears and grapple saws), coupled with the fluctuating demand for such work, makes an in-house team less cost-effective and flexible than using external contractors.”
