Where a council officer undertakes the responsibility of advising a homeowner on the safety of a tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order, a routine visual inspection is insufficient where the risk if the opinion is wrong includes danger to life. The officer, by professing expertise, is held to a higher standard of care analogous to a general medical practitioner — requiring either a reasonably informed diagnosis or referral to a specialist. A council officer can avoid this higher duty by declining to give unequivocal advice and instead directing the homeowner to obtain independent advice and make a formal application.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.