BS 5837 ? never heard of it mate..

[Matthew Arnold]

We've had this sort of thing happen on one of my sites. There was a line of about 40 Leylandii and some very large Ash, Sycamore and a massive Aspen. All of the trees were in perfect order but they were felled in May last year the worst time to fell ivy clad trees. About 3 months later the contractors ripped out the line of leylandii stumps and ground out the rest. 2 months after that the builders came in a dug down about 6 ft to get the site perfectly level to the boundary. They cut through about half the root system of several coppice stools on our side of the boundary. As the foundations were laid the first stool gave up the ghost and landed in the builders site. We very quickly got our county council tree surgeons come and do an emergency clearance. We billed the building company for the work. 3 days of work with 4 men, 1 van and TW190 chipper and fuel = £4,500 for the removal of 6 large sycamore, ash and hornbeam coppice stools.

[arb culture]

QUOTE=Yorkshireman;55220]

Local Planners need to enforce 5837 with instruction to include Tree related reports in planning app's from architects & then monitor if its is being applied by contractors.

 

You're quite right Yorkshireman.

 

If the arb method statement is included as a condition of planning then the LPA has many more options available for dealing with breaches to both planning permissions and TPOs.

 

I am still surprised by the number of LPAs who insist on a tree survey but then don't insist on a method statement.

[combined tree services]

im pretty sure that BS5837 is only enforced on certain construction sites, i have seen so many trees dammaged by either the construction of buildings or the construction workers . Recently a site near me had several tres taken down to allow for the construction of several dwellings which led to a public outcry and rightly so !! but why were none or the trees to be retained fenced off or at least a suitable cordon placed arround them ?? why were the trees being retained dammaged by the fools that took the trees down to make way for construction ??? . To top the situation off the LA gave a flimsey excuse that the trees being felled were " in poor condition and were not going to develop " . It was pretty clear that the trees felled were part of a stand of trees that should have been retained as a group that formed a screen and boundary to the adjacent road .

[treequip]

Well here’s the rub. BS 5837 is a useful tool for tree protection but it lacks teeth. Applying 5837 RPA’s is troublesome to developers so they won’t do it voluntarily. They can be made to do adhere to 5837 by planning condition, IF the planners catch it. Many do not.

 

Now if the LA’s do start widespread enforcement of 5837 the developer is just going to do a clear fell before they let the planners see the site. Many already do.

 

Andy

Edited September 12, 2010 by treequip
added a bit

[arb culture]

I've found that when working with a reasonable LPA (ie not one that thinks every tree is sacred, or is apt to change their mind at the drop of hat) the vast majority of clients are very happy to go through the BS:5837 procedure.

 

After all, if they are using a decent and client focussed consultant/surveyor it is almost certain to save them time and money in the long run.

 

Of course, when you have an LPA who regularly tries to protect low value trees then the trust is lost, and developers will fell everything they can before anyone can stop them.

 

It's even worse when a tree officer agrees to something at pre-app and then recommends a refusal later. It is almost impossible to convince a developer to retain trees once that has been done to them a couple of times.

Edited September 12, 2010 by arb culture
typo

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Ive said it before, ONE LAW/RULES SET

 

Preserve them all, increase financial penalties, put the fines in ther coffers and come down on ALL like a ton of lead bricks.

[Mesterh]

Been watching this developement site for a couple of years.

My guess is that this Centuries old Oak will not be long for this mortal coil

 

Whatever happened?

[Bundle 2]

Ive said it before, ONE LAW/RULES SET

 

Preserve them all, increase financial penalties, put the fines in ther coffers and come down on ALL like a ton of lead bricks.

 

I wish I could endorse this sentiment; I really do. But if you think the LPA's are at fault by way of a myriad of competence re:legislation, interpretation and implementation...I can't honestly harbour much hope for policies based around strict parameters the like of which you describe...