5837 2 Q's

[sloth]

Q1

Is there any point in assigning a category to trees on neighbouring land? Surely regardless of category, if the neighbour/owner likes it, it is a constraint on design. However if it is not protected then what, other than the TO applying a TPO, can stop a developer from severing roots/canopy to the boundary?

 

Q2

If a tree has foundations through its rpa and a butchering of the crown required to build a wall, a removal is recommended as the trees ruined, possibly unstable due to trenching through the roots. Planning may be granted following approval of the retention/removal/pruning works. If the site owner then decides to keep the tree in a state, that's ok. Right?

 

Thoughts please...

[ScottF]

Q1: I always pick up neighbouring trees whose RPAs are likely to be affected by development works, since it can lead to issues of liability or just bad feeling down the line if the tree declines. This sometimes requires estimation of DBH there are issues of access or where the client has asked that development plans be kept confidential until submitted.

 

Q2: If the client wants to keep a "compromised" tree it is up to them, but if you feel the tree is likely to become unstable or pose a risk, then you should offer your professional opinion to that effect.

[Khriss]

Ummm, 1.5m acturly mate-We aint allowed to have breasts anymore Kx

[ScottF]

Breasts vary from country to country, I'll think you'll find, with ornamental trees having the highest breasts of the lot:

 

Diameter at breast height - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Callum]

Hi

 

Assigning a category to a tree on neighbouring land is useful to the LA when they are considering the possible impact of the proposed development.

 

I see what you're saying though- It would be similar if a developer bought land which had a large 'A' grade tree slap bang in the middle of it. He/she could then fell it (providing that there is no TPO) before submitting a planning application and avoid any tree related hastles.

 

Although I don't suppose the developer would be very popular with the LPA if they did do that.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Hi

 

Assigning a category to a tree on neighbouring land is useful to the LA when they are considering the possible impact of the proposed development.

 

I see what you're saying though- It would be similar if a developer bought land which had a large 'A' grade tree slap bang in the middle of it. He/she could then fell it (providing that there is no TPO) before submitting a planning application and avoid any tree related hastles.

 

Although I don't suppose the developer would be very popular with the LPA if they did do that.

 

the TO would have little idea it existed in the first place without a TPO and the planning dept even less of a clue! in fact planning depts and TOs rarely consult each other IME!

[ScottF]

If the application came in through 1APP and trees were not as an issue then the application would require a Tree Survey of some kind. If the LA had the resources they might send out their TO who might spot an offsite tree likely to be affected and raise it as an issue. It's good to pre-empt these things and look like you know what you're doing.

 

That said, a lot of LA's don't have the resources (in fact, increasing numbers of LA's don't even have TO's), and/or they don't have a particular interest in trees.

 

The coverage from LA to LA is so variable these days it's hard to know what to advise. If I had to be brutally honest with some councils I would I would have to say to clients that it's pointless paying for an arb survey since the LA won't read it so just do what you like. Not naming names or owt, though.

 

Hmm, rant over.

Edited September 4, 2012 by ScottF
poor spelling

[Bundle 2]

Couple points...measurements are specified @ 1.5m in the British Standard...

I agree that neighbouring trees of significance ( likely to present a constraint ? ) should be included in some way. The above suggestions make good sense. The answer is in the British Standard ( all but saying so) as it describes how to categorize (Table 1 ) and elsewhere within the text. ( it tends to repeat itself a bit Ive noticed !!)

Not saying there's no need to ask - discussion is healthy Im sure.

To some extent, I think you could take a position in line with BS5837 as it states, even end use of neighbouring land must be considered...!

Nice idea but in reality, quite likely a simple impracticality !

[Bundle 2]

BS5837 4.2.4 c)

[Paul Barton]

Hi Sloth,

 

These are really good questions, and neighbouring trees are something that I have struggled with, and still do. I tend to agree that it is more or less pointless assigning a 'retention category' for a tree on 3rd party land (perhaps unless the neighbouring tree is clearly a U category tree).

 

I recently wrote a report for a slippery client that wished to build right up to the boundaries on 2 sides of a site. On one side in a neighbour's garden were a row of pollarded Limes that were of moderate quality, on the other an informal group of shrubs and small trees of low-moderate quality.

 

I categorised the Limes as 'B' and the group the other side as 'C'. I also advised in my report that the RPA's should not be impinged on either side, as this could lead to the decline of trees belonging to neighbours.

 

To say my client was unhappy with this advice would be an understatement - he is currently trying to find someone else to write the report that he wants, but it won't be me!

 

Regarding question 2 - yes, the damaged tree can be retained but I would advise the owner/developer of the failure potential of retaining the tree if it's that bad.