BS 5837 objectivity?

[sloth]

Some good replies here, interesting to hear how others go about dealing with problems thanks to all for replying.

So does anyone know if or when or how a more objective report can/will be compulsory?

[Amelanchier]

I would argue that my objectivity has no value; clients instruct me for my professional opinion. While that may be partly based on fairly indisputable objective information (i.e., tree positions, physical dimensions etc), essentially the whole purpose of my involvement is the subjective. Anyone can throw a tape measure round a tree.

[treeseer]

I would argue that my objectivity has no value; clients instruct me for my professional opinion. While that may be partly based on fairly indisputable objective information (i.e., tree positions, physical dimensions etc), essentially the whole purpose of my involvement is the subjective. Anyone can throw a tape measure round a tree.

 

Clients instruct? Must be a different meaning in the UK; I have not been instructed since elementary school (and it shows).

 

I rather like Steve's approach: "Personally I am very blunt with my clients and tell them how it is going to be rather than what they want it to be"

They hired us for our judgment, after all.

 

Will more objectivity be compulsory; still wrapping my head around that one...

[Treecreeper1961]

As far as I can make out a lot on the issues that may arise between client and arb. are due to a lack of understanding of the full intention of the application of the standard as a series of steps that "flow in a logical order". The problem seems to me that if a developer doesn't understand that there is a difference between the tree survey, the tree constraints plan and the tree protection plan and that the process requires thought, communication, negotiation and compromise then the process of the BS5837 is a shambles.

 

The tree survey and production of a tree constraints plan should be totally objective as far as I can make out.

 

Following design consideration of the tcp and the desired development there should then be an element of subjective input to reach the best compromise for all concerned, trees, cost implications and greater benefit to society.

 

As far as I am aware this is where improvements in the implementation of the standard are required and I gather from discussion on here that the revision of the document is geared partly toward that.

[ScottF]

I'd agree broadly with Tony's points above in that, apart from the empirical data that you're collecting (DBH,Height,specie etc) the evaluation process is entirely subjective, and so it should be. You're being asked for your opinion, nothing more.

 

What is important is that you can defend your contentions with sound reasoning. After having been through my fair share of appeals (as tree officer and as consultant), I always approach my decision-making with the thought of what a potentially aggressive solicitor or pendantic planning inspector might ask, and how I would justify my reasoning.

 

And in terms of bowing to developer pressure and downgrading a tree to enable a development- bad idea. I reckon all of those out there who will (and there still are some about), eventually get found out and their word ends up meaning very little indeed.

 

As an aside:

 

instruct

Pronunciation: /ɪnˈstrʌkt/

verb

 

1 [reporting verb] tell or order someone to do something, especially in a formal or official way:

 

From the Oxford English Dictionary

[treeseer]

"What is important is that you can defend your contentions with sound reasoning. After having been through my fair share of appeals (as tree officer and as consultant), I always approach my decision-making with the thought of what a potentially aggressive solicitor or pendantic planning inspector might ask, and how I would justify my reasoning."

 

Yes exactly that, opinions need to be defendable (or defensible ) Write it and cite it and move on; too often this is sweated over way too much.

 

" [reporting verb] tell or order someone to do something, especially in a formal or official way:From the Oxford English Dictionary"

 

That was my point; perhaps a pedantic or semantic one, but imo arb consultants are best used when they have more autonomy. Otherwise it can be a case of the blind leading the sighted, and that can lead to bad places. :thumb down:

 

The "constraints plan" is part of the survey/inventory here; not a bad idea to separate that out, for some jobs. Sounds like it could be overkill for others; I can understand a client getting a bit impatient with the process.

[steve.m]

'I can understand a client getting a bit impatient with the process.'

 

I dont......... more or less on every planning application form in the country are the imortal words ' Are there trees on or adjacent to the site'. Every developer knows, but some still choose to ignore, about BS5837 it's just they still think they can get away with it and that is why I take the blunt route by almost telling them off.

 

Education, education education it's a slow process but they will get there. I have had developers ask me to downgrade trees my answer is are they willing to pay me a life times worth of work when I get laughed at and ridiculed never to work in this industry again, no is the usual reply so hence my reply no and dont call me again your fired, I have done this several times in my career there are just some people who are not worth working for.

 

If developers get impatient they either do not know what they are doing or they are getting bad advice from their planning department/ agent. BS5837 has been around long enough now that ignorance is not an excuse, thankfully most are quite willing to have you on board and take your advice very seriously.