School telling us to remove nut trees from community orchard

[Calling]

We are in a local voluntary group and local people planted an orchard in the grounds of a school, for the school.

Now, the school has written to say that we have to remove the nut trees because one pupil has a bad nut allergy.

There are fruit and nut trees, that the local people planted some years ago and we have put a lot of work into weeding and watering. The yield was actually for the kids and we are volunteering with the school with and nature sessions outside.

Before anyone says we are potential child killers, we do understand the importance of safety. There is a management plan in place, but the school has been asked by a parent to remove our trees.
I do feel disheartened - nobody in the school said no to nut trees originally.

Congrats on being able to google and cut and paste one of the first results 👏 Trees are easily moved. It’s an easy win. Move the tree. Goodnight.

No, it’s not my job to provide you with examples. Go and do some more googling if you’re that bored.
Removing a nut tree isn’t going to put your daughter at any greater risk. But keeping it there could well put my niece at such. Goodnight.

Wrong!No, a dairy allergy is not necessarily less likely to cause severe or fatal anaphylaxis than a nut allergy; in fact, research shows that cow's milk allergy can be just as dangerous and is a leading cause of severe pediatric allergic reactions. Research shows cows milk causes more fatalities.

You’ve said good night multiple times. Maybe educate yourself better. You do not know better than the leading allergy advice or Benedict’s Law.

Not doubting a higher amount of dairy related attacks/death. Not what I said. But back to the OPs Q - just move the trees. It motivates a risk (however small) and has no downside.

You are wrong. I suspect you’re lying about the allergic niece and being a school governor to be fair as there is no way you would be so misinformed if either of those were true.

Nut allergies are not an allergy to the whole nut, it’s a very specific protein contained within the nut. Tree nuts are enclosed in a hard shell, the shell does not contain the allergic protein. There is no risk of contact with the tree. A canopy can be installed to stop any nuts falling to the floor.

Removing a nut tree that has been made safe denies you ‘niece’ the opportunity to see and learn to recognise tree nuts in nature in a safe environment. That lesson may one day save her life if she is out in a forest or a park or any of the millions of places nut trees grow. That’s why education is more important than bans and as I’ve shown you this is supported by EVERY SINGLE allergy organisation in the UK. But of course you know better.

No because it goes against current advice. Schools need to follow expert advice not your wants.

It sounds like the trees have been there longer than the child has been at school.

Joining a school and expecting the school to ban nuts in packed lunches because of your airborne nut allergy is reasonable.

But expecting people to dig up trees to accommodate you is too much. Surely there are other schools in the area without nut trees?

I’ve only said it once to you. But I will come back on this point, as you’ve made it multiple times but not answered my question once (what is your problem with moving a tree to keep children safer, however small the risk?). I’m as educated as I need to be. You’re single minded, which is unhelpful. I really am leaving now, I’m missing Strictly for this nonsense. And thankfully, the trees will be moving regardless, so the correct decision has already been made. Night 👋

Governors don't decide exactly what a school does anyway. Our role is to check they comply with the statutory guidance. As a governor I wouldn't dream of offering a view to the head on whether certain foods should be banned, I'd only check we had a policy. Our LA hasn't even rolled out training for governors on this yet so it's a bit rich to expect governors to have any specialist knowledge on this at all (along with all the other encyclopaedic knowledge we're supposed to have, as volunteers...!).

OP the school can obviously do their own risk assessment and decide what they want to do on their own land. You can't stomp about asking for scientific evidence like some PP suggest. But it is cheeky to ask your group to foot the bill, at most they should be asking for the contact details of a tree surgeon.

It's ok to feel sad about it though.

The exact words you said are - dairy allergies are less likely to cause anaphylaxis (that you incorrectly spelt as anaphylactics) if you want to be exact.

This is not true, therefore you are giving out false information. I’m not sure how many different ways that needs spelling out?

You really dont get it. Kids will pick up the nuts, put them in pockets, play games with them. It can be very dangerous if there is a serious allergy around. It was irresponsible to plant them in the first place. Your sadness is irrelevant when safety in is question. Sorry but you clearly have no experience in this field, foelr which you are very lucky

I can't imagine Allergy UK would be supportive of that course or action.

We’ve all told you multiply times why!🙄It has not been clarified that they will be removed. When Benedict’s Law is highlighted and how going nut free is detrimental to safety alongside the other options re the trees who knows what the decision will be. The op won’t be cutting them for them.

No kids will not pick them up because they will be supervised. They are in an orchard which is not necessarily the playground anyway.

Before destroying these nut trees perhaps the actual extent of the child's allergy should be established by a qualifiededival professional.
Surely if this student's nut allergy is so severe, not species dependant, ( in other words not just peanut) and sensitive to exposure rather than actual ingestion, then he/she would have to virtually live in a bubble?
A large number of products which other people will be using around them will contain nut extracts. For example shampoos, conditioners shower gels and body lotions containing Argan oil, macadamia oil, almond oil and coconut oil.
Will every person they ever come into contact with be a potential allergen danger? (I think not.)
Every supermarket will contain a massive number of products containing nuts. You don't see supermarkets refusing to stock nutty snacks in fear of an accidental crumb from a split biscuit packet contaminating the store. Is this child's nut allergy so severe that they will never go to a supermarket without fill PPE?
You can't legislate for everybody and everything that is around this child all the time.
Far better that the the child is taught to manage their condition, recognise what to avoid, and know how to self administer their medication.

Children will also pick up cheese and throw it, in fact a child died in school for exactly that reason. Do you support banning cheese as well? Or any allergens that a child could throw? Or should we focus on education instead?

They’ll drop it on the lunch hall floor, leave shards on tables, drop it in the playground, have it on their hands…

I don't understand why anyone thought it would be wise to plant a nut tree there is the first place. Or why anyone is upset about its removal. Its a tree versus a child's life?!

I don't know how large the trees are but I don't think this a job for volunteers
This is what google has replies to my question I assume the school is local authority school

It is a nut tree and the volunteers that care for the trees have been asked to remove it, however they dont feel that they are qualified for the work

The volunteers must not carry out this work, and they are completely right to stand their ground.
Under UK health and safety laws, an LA school cannot delegate the felling or major cutting of a tree to volunteers. Because the school is open to children, staff, and the public, the legal risks are exceptionally high.

Why Volunteers Must Refuse
Lack of Insurance Coverage: Standard volunteer insurance or school public liability insurance rarely covers tree felling. If a volunteer is injured, or if the tree damages a building or hurts a child, the volunteers and the school leadership could be held personally or legally liable.
The "Competent Person" Legal Requirement: The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) strictly requires that anyone using chainsaws or felling trees on public/commercial premises must be a "competent person." This means they must hold recognized professional qualifications (such as NPTC/LANTRA certifications) and use specialized safety gear.
Potential Criminal Offence: Nut trees (like Walnut or Sweet Chestnut) can sometimes be protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) or by being inside a Conservation Area. Removing one without formal council permission is a criminal offence that carries heavy fines. A professional contractor or the LA Tree Officer must check this first.

How to Respond to the School (Draft Message)
The volunteers should put their refusal in writing to the Headteacher or School Business Manager immediately. This protects the volunteer group and forces the school to follow the correct legal channels.
Here is a polite, firm draft they can use:

Subject: Urgent: Tree removal request at [School Name]
Dear [Name],
Thank you for reaching out regarding the nut tree on the school grounds.
While our volunteer group is happy to help with routine tree care and light maintenance, we have assessed the request to remove this tree and must formally decline the work.
Under UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) guidelines, felling a tree of this size requires fully qualified, certified (NPTC/LANTRA), and specifically insured arboricultural professionals. As volunteers, we do not possess the required professional qualifications, heavy rigging equipment, or insurance coverage to undertake tree removal safely on school premises.
Given the strict duty of care required on school grounds, we strongly advise that this task is referred to the Local Authority’s Tree Management Team or a certified commercial tree surgeon who can also check for any active Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs).
Thank you for understanding that we must prioritize the safety of our volunteers, the pupils, and the school property.
Kind regards,
[Your Name/Volunteer Group Name]

Utterly crazy.
Don’t take your child near that particular tree if you think there is an allergen issue.

Dig it up because of this? Seriously?
I say this as a Biologist.
Completely bonkers!

Most "nut" allergies are peanuts and cashews. Neither of these things are actually nuts. Unless the child actually has a severe almond or hazelnut allergy, these trees are unlikely to be an issue. Where I live you get filberts growing wild so this child wouldn't be able to go anywhere at all.

Nuts are not an airborne allergy, this has been proven repeatedly. Cows milk protein is actually significantly more likely to become airborne when heated although still very rare to do so.

Your child’s CMPA allergy is not the same for other children. CMPA is the leading cause of anaphylactic death in children. More children die from this than from tree nut and peanut allergies combined. So it’s not correct that it’s less likely to cause anaphylaxis at all.

Have you still not understood. There are more deaths in kids from milk allergy than nut allergy. Your own kid’s experience isn’t relevant here. For some children it causes anaphylaxis. Why are people so unwilling to accept that they treat nut and dairy allergies differently due to ignorance and prejudice.