Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, roscoe1982 said:

is there limit to the incursion though even when using minimal dig solutions, etc.

 7.4.2.3 New permanent hard surfacing should not exceed 20% of any existing

unsurfaced ground within the RPA.

 

However, I would say that if you can justify more then have a go.  Justifying it is not easy though...you are likely to need details on soil structure and a carefully specced installation of the 'no-dig' solution.  Some tree officers accept it and some don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, roscoe1982 said:

is there limit to the incursion though even when using minimal dig solutions, etc.

The BS is not the law, it is guuidance. You haven't said whether you are trying to get planning permission. If you are, the Council will probably want strict compliance with BS5837. If so, and permission was refused because of 'incursion' and no justification is given for the incursion, then an appeal would probably fail.

 

5837 says -

The default position should be that structures are located outside the RPAs of trees to be retained. However, where there is an overriding justification for construction within the RPA, technical solutions might be available that prevent damage to the tree.

If operations within the RPA are proposed, the project arboriculturist should  demonstrate that the tree(s) can remain viable and that the area lost to encroachment can be compensated for elsewhere, contiguous with its RPA, and propose a series of mitigation measures to improve the soil environment that is used by the tree for growth.

There is no magic number.

I hope that answers the question, although I was hesitant at first for rewarding your use of the ghastly and insistent phrase 'hit me back'. Next time it should at least be hit me back please.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I understand that BS isn't law, rather Recommendation. All the relevant tree protection plans were submitted with the use of a minimum dig solution, cellular confinement system, however they have said that even with this, they have said that the scheme will place undue pressure and threaten the trees. this is going to planning inspectorate hearing in October. it seems a thin argument for refusal but  there are other reasons for the refusal several, in fact. the incursion isn't near 20% for all trees but 1.  

Quote
Quote

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Featured Adverts

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.