5837 2 Q's

[Giles Hill]

It would depend...

 

You start off with the BS ideal of avoiding the RPA of all retained trees, but if a compromise has to be made then I'd advise that the compromise is made in respect of the 'C' category trees, rather than the higher grades.

 

Obviously you'd need to assess the tree in question to decide how much compromise it'll take, the RPA is basically theoretical, some trees will tolerate a lot more disturbance than others.

 

Notwithstanding this, some 'C' category trees just don't merit working around, with something like a Leyland cypress, that's been topped at 4m the main reason for recording it is so the engineer to can assess it's impact on the foundation designs.

 

Regarding liability, I'd be primarily concerned about the damage that might occur if the tree in question became unstable - i.e. as opposed to worrying about reducing it's life expectancy.

[Giles Hill]

It would depend...

 

You start off with the BS ideal of avoiding the RPA of all retained trees, but if a compromise has to be made then I'd advise that the compromise is made in respect of the 'C' category trees, rather than the higher grades.

 

Obviously you'd need to assess the tree in question to decide how much compromise it'll take, the RPA is basically theoretical, some trees will tolerate a lot more disturbance than others.

 

Notwithstanding this, some 'C' category trees just don't merit working around, with something like a Leyland cypress, that's been topped at 4m the main reason for recording it is so the engineer to can assess it's impact on the foundation designs.

 

Regarding liability, I'd be primarily concerned about the damage that might occur if the tree in question became unstable - i.e. as opposed to worrying about reducing it's life expectancy.

[Giles Hill]

It would depend...

 

You start off with the BS ideal of avoiding the RPA of all retained trees, but if a compromise has to be made then I'd advise that the compromise is made in respect of the 'C' category trees, rather than the higher grades.

 

Obviously you'd need to assess the tree in question to decide how much compromise it'll take, the RPA is basically theoretical, some trees will tolerate a lot more disturbance than others.

 

Notwithstanding this, some 'C' category trees just don't merit working around, with something like a Leyland cypress, that's been topped at 4m the main reason for recording it is so the engineer to can assess it's impact on the foundation designs.

 

Regarding liability, I'd be primarily concerned about the damage that might occur if the tree in question became unstable - i.e. as opposed to worrying about reducing it's life expectancy.

[Paul Barton]

Of course, I understand the concept of categorizing trees and sacrificing the poorer quality trees first. What we are discussing is 3rd party trees - if the trees do not belong to your client isn't it wrong to approve a plan that would damage someone else's property?

[Paul Barton]

Of course, I understand the concept of categorizing trees and sacrificing the poorer quality trees first. What we are discussing is 3rd party trees - if the trees do not belong to your client isn't it wrong to approve a plan that would damage someone else's property?

[Paul Barton]

Of course, I understand the concept of categorizing trees and sacrificing the poorer quality trees first. What we are discussing is 3rd party trees - if the trees do not belong to your client isn't it wrong to approve a plan that would damage someone else's property?

[Giles Hill]

Paul, I know you're experienced with BS5837, I was explaining my thinking rather than teaching you how to suck eggs. The original question was about the point of categorising trees on neighbouring land and that was what I was attempting to refer to.

 

I think it's best to consider the trees on neighbouring land as an integral part of the survey / assessment / proposal and propose protection accordingly. I wouldn't give the neighbour's trees less protection than those within the site and I wouldn't give them more.

 

Regarding damaging the neighbours property - obviously you'd (probably) want to avoid killing or destabilising their tree, but beyond that I would see cutting some roots off in a similar way as cutting off some branches. I'm not saying I'd condone cutting all the roots off on the boundary line - the extent of the encroachment into the RPA would depend on the tree and would need to be justified in a report to which the person who'd written it would be held accountable.

[Giles Hill]

Paul, I know you're experienced with BS5837, I was explaining my thinking rather than teaching you how to suck eggs. The original question was about the point of categorising trees on neighbouring land and that was what I was attempting to refer to.

 

I think it's best to consider the trees on neighbouring land as an integral part of the survey / assessment / proposal and propose protection accordingly. I wouldn't give the neighbour's trees less protection than those within the site and I wouldn't give them more.

 

Regarding damaging the neighbours property - obviously you'd (probably) want to avoid killing or destabilising their tree, but beyond that I would see cutting some roots off in a similar way as cutting off some branches. I'm not saying I'd condone cutting all the roots off on the boundary line - the extent of the encroachment into the RPA would depend on the tree and would need to be justified in a report to which the person who'd written it would be held accountable.

[Giles Hill]

Paul, I know you're experienced with BS5837, I was explaining my thinking rather than teaching you how to suck eggs. The original question was about the point of categorising trees on neighbouring land and that was what I was attempting to refer to.

 

I think it's best to consider the trees on neighbouring land as an integral part of the survey / assessment / proposal and propose protection accordingly. I wouldn't give the neighbour's trees less protection than those within the site and I wouldn't give them more.

 

Regarding damaging the neighbours property - obviously you'd (probably) want to avoid killing or destabilising their tree, but beyond that I would see cutting some roots off in a similar way as cutting off some branches. I'm not saying I'd condone cutting all the roots off on the boundary line - the extent of the encroachment into the RPA would depend on the tree and would need to be justified in a report to which the person who'd written it would be held accountable.

[Paul Barton]

Ok, thanks Giles. We approach this in a different way - I'm going to re-evaluate how I do this in future. Good thread Sloth!