New BS5837 released today

[Paul Barton]

The updated version of BS5837 was released today. You can buy a copy at BS 5837:2012 - Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction. Recommendations ? BSI British Standards for half price until the end of May.

 

Unfortunately it's still a whacking £89!

 

Once I have had a chance to read it I'l post some comments here - feel free to join in so we all know what the changes are.

[Paul Barton]

I forgot to say: the download from the BSI site isn't working properly yet so it may be best to wait a few days til they fix the link.

 

Otherwise you can go ahead and pay now and they will email you a copy until the website is working properly.

[sloth]

Glad to know its not just me having problems downloading it. I emailed them on Sunday and still have no reply?! Oh well, give it a day or two.

Do you know if there are any major changes?

[ScottF]

Download's working now. Got my shiny new copy.

[Amelanchier]

Same here. Anyone know how many roots you need for a 'clump'? (see 7.2.3)

[Paul Barton]

Same here. Anyone know how many roots you need for a 'clump'? (see 7.2.3)

 

Good word!

 

clump - Wiktionary

 

More than a couple but less than alot? Is a clump bigger or smaller than a cluster?

[cold cuts]

Doing a BS5837 course in a couple of weeks glad they have the new one out, not so glad i will have to fork out for a new one..

Regards Gav.

[ScottF]

Pretty underwhelmed with the changes so far. They seem to have taken the rubbish categorisation system and rather than overhauling it to allow for rather more nuanced and comprehensible scoring, they've changed the "R" category to "U".

 

They've also failed to address the massive elephant in the room, which is that without vigilant site monitoring and reporting as a KEY part of the entire process, any preliminary planning work which is done is completely pointless. All that's pointed out is that monitoring is useful, but enforcement remains the domain of the LA. Poor.

[Paul Barton]

They've also failed to address the massive elephant in the room, which is that without vigilant site monitoring and reporting as a KEY part of the entire process, any preliminary planning work which is done is completely pointless. All that's pointed out is that monitoring is useful, but enforcement remains the domain of the LA. Poor.

 

True, but there are already powers within the planning process that allow for that. I'm not sure that just because a BS says so, local authorities would suddenly take note and spend more on enforcement staff. Surely it's more a case of resources and TO's that are on the ball (or not).

 

I do agree that this area is the primary problem of the process though. I went to a site yesterday where the LA planners had really put me through my paces in terms of detailed method statements. I was saddened to see that the client (who had done his best impression of someone that liked trees) had not put up any tree protection at all. There is a particularly fine tree on site which I awarded an 'A' category to which is rare...with rubble, skips and vehicles all around the stem.

 

I decided I am going to write to the LA and plead with them to start conditioning site supervision (not breaking any client confidentiality of course).

[ScottF]

I agree, Paul, that the standard has no power to compell, but having watched the influence that the 2005 standard has had in upping developers' and designers' games in terms of tree protection (from an admittedly low starting point), I think that defining terms and trying to get the concept of site monitoring and reporting into the public arena with a bit more emphasis would have been really useful.

 

I'm getting slightly tired of jumping through various hoops to agree tree protection, method statements, special surfaces etc etc at planning stage, and to agree a really robust set of controls on a site to protect trees and secure replacements, only to drive past the same sites "in build" and see no fencing, new trenches going in through RPAs, gardens extended and graded through roots etc etc. It just makes the whole process utterly pointless.

 

All of this is at least in part due to LA's not appreciating the need for competent and well-resourced TOs, with a number of large authorities in Wales dispensing with having a TO altogether. While this may present an opportunity for private arbs to cover this service, I'd personally prefer to have a good TO in post who I can deal with. Without this, there is no real compulsion for a cynical or even careless developer to do the right thing with respect to trees.

 

I may have strayed off-topic a bit here, but that's just how I roll.