Planning application & Arboricultural Method Statement

[Puffingbilly413]

18 hours ago, daltontrees said:

I could have been clearer. Clause 5.4.3 of BS5837 says the AIA should show the trees to be removed. BUT it is not for the Arb to decide that, it is for the client to do in consitation with the designers and having regard to the arb evidence. It is almost never the job of the arb to justify removals, but the arb should provide all the data and evidence needed for the client to make informed decisions about this. Recommedations can be made, but the client doens't need to follow them.

 

It is therefore downright ridiculous for the situation ever to arise where the arb shows a tree as to be removed in the final report submitted to Planning unless the client has told him to do so. There is a clean break between the survey/constraints plan and the AIA/protection plan. In reality, people like me regularly do a  survey and TCP then the client says 'fine now here's the design that we've decided on, do an AIA'. That after all is what the AIA is for, it shows the effect of the selected design on the trees, sometimes meaning removal, sometimes pruning, sometimes protection. I usually tell the client what the consequences of the design are and give him a last opporotunity to adjust, then the AIA goes to print and to Planning. Too many arbs get sucked into justifying the removals, but it is not their job to do so, it's not necessary and it's rarely helpful if the evidence is already there in the survey report and schedule.

 

I work for many of the volume house builders, as well as for Councils and many others. If I just once submitted a report to Planning without client's prior approval, I'd get my arse kicked, and rightly so. I'd kick it myself if I could. The moment the report goes to Planning there is a possibility of approval with conditions that hold the client to the protection measures. Whereas a Council is unlikely to enforce removal of trees if the client changes his mind, it's  professionally  a sloppy situation to put the client in.

Yeah I see what you mean and don't disagree really.

 

I think in the OP's example they have included recommendations to fell for safety reasons. I believe it is with the scope of the BS to comment as such if appropriate - but the comments would surely reflect that these particular recommendations were not pe se relevant to a TCP etc.

 

I wasn't suggesting that a report be submitted without client approval - rather I meant that I would not remove relevant evidential comments/recommendations from a report because a client didn't want them in. If the information is relevant for those making the decisions then it has to appear surely.

 

But I do take your point re the differing purposes of a TCP, AIA, TPP etc 

[daltontrees]

Puffingbilly, coments weren't directed at you in particular. Just generally I see a lot of 5837 reports and the standard is pretty poor. A (now new) client came to me in the middle of the week saying he had got a 5837 report but it didn't seem to do what he needed it to. So I looked it over. It was done by an ecologist (no qualifications or experience or training stated) using the 2005 version but said it was to the 2012 version. The stated methodology was VTA, nothing else. Root Protection areas included areas under buildings and into the middle of a river. There was no constraints plan. There was no AIA. Trees to be removed weren't marked on the protection plan. Whole sections of disparate trees were grouped as a 'woodland' despite a proposed path being marked as going right through it, the path goes right through some trees not indicated anywhere as being removed. Just a CEZ barrier that staggered around the site in unrealistically short sections. Shocking. The planning authority wil never get to see it. I will be re-doing it from scratch. The client checked twice that my fee was correct, he couldn't believe it was so low relative to the previous report fee. Sickening that we have all these standards and systems and legislation in place and too often it achieves nothing.