BS5837 categorisation

[Amelanchier]

You may re-write the categorisation methodology but it is a significant part of the BS and as such, are you really providing a BS report or a version of your own report. There is ample provision within the AIA to give reason/justification why a tree should be retained/removed irrespective of whether it is an A, B or C category tree/group

 

Agreed but I don't rewrite it; I just don't rely on it.

[Amelanchier]

Thanks for chipping in Tony. I agree with you but am cynical (realistic?!) about how much of the report gets read!

 

Isn't there always a danger that the architect/developer just views the pretty coloured trees on the plan and begins eliminating them from there, starting with dark reds and moving on to greys then blues?

 

I guess it's not our fault if people don't bother to read what is written down though....

 

Well if people aren't going to read it what can you do?

[Paul Barton]

Well if people aren't going to read it what can you do?

 

Start threads like this and then resume banging your head on a wall?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Good stuff! Perhaps there should be a paragraph detailing the spec of said head banging wall!

[Amelanchier]

Start threads like this and then resume banging your head on a wall?

 

 

I have come to view the disinterested as a niche market. They have their own challenges but their money is worth just as much.

[benedmonds]

Isn't there always a danger that the architect/developer just views the pretty coloured trees on the plan and begins eliminating them from there, starting with dark reds and moving on to greys then blues?

..

 

Isn't that kind of the point..

 

"Look those trees are knackered you can stick your building there. That one is nice avoid."

 

Although I recently did one for house on a large plot, it had one nice Oak in one corner, with loads of space and nothing worth saving in the rest. The architect still came back with the house under the tree and asked how we could build in the RPA. "Why not put it over there, thus avoiding the issue and retaining the tree...?"

[Paul Barton]

Isn't that kind of the point..

 

Yes - but that's also the flaw if you have a simplified method for complex processes.

 

The architect still came back with the house under the tree and asked how we could build in the RPA. "Why not put it over there, thus avoiding the issue and retaining the tree...?"

 

If the architect can't even take the plan seriously what chance have you got convincing them to read the report?

 

To be fair to architects they have a lot more constraints to consider than just trees...light, utilities, access, terrain, drainage and much more I'd imagine.

[daltontrees]

Good stuff! Perhaps there should be a paragraph detailing the spec of said head banging wall!

It's not intended to be a spec, just a statement of best practice. Although the frustrated arb 'should' bang his head off a wall, he may elect instead to scream and smash plates. Nothing wrong with that, as long as the deviation from best practice is explained. What matters is that the frustration is dispelled or numbed.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Agreed, the BS isn't (supposed to be) a spec. But if banging head against a wall is to be incorporated at the next amendment, the WALL will need a spec otherwise all sorts of potential hazards could emerge: embedded particles of masonry, structural damage, dislodged masonry, etc, etc... The potential litigation could be disastrous!

[daltontrees]

On the subject of unread reports...

 

Generally I find it best to write even preliminary reports as if they and every word and sentence in them will be held up to the light 5 years hence by some very sharp Counsel whose job is to discredit it and you, so as to undermine your client's arguments. I am sure that overt the years some of my best work has not been read.

 

I was interested to see two posters here saying they could reconcile the seemingly conflicting statements in the BS that the trees should be categorised before design and then after design. I am curious to know how, if anyone can sum up how the argument would be stated.

 

Re-reading the relevant bits of the BS, it seems the trees should definitely be categorised before detailed design but to do so it the context of the proposed use and generalised massing of the development. The desire seems to be to level the playing field a bit between trees and buildings. Such BS5837 reporting as I have done includes, as someone else has indicated, categorisation in both the before and after scenarios. Most trees don't change category but some do.

 

Most developers are in it for the money and want to crack on. They want a valuable consent quickly but may compromise on value to get earlier consent, especially if they have bought the site speculatively. They and their design team may or may not have strong views on whether trees add or detract from sales values and/or running costs. The Council also wants (and has to allow) Local Plan compliant sites to be developed and may make compromises. Both parties act under the constant shadow of appeals options.

 

And here for me is the nub of it. Trees have 2 roles in the planning context. One is they may (internally) make for a better development whether they have to be planted or retained. Two is they provide amenity (externally) to the surrounding area. The Council has a valid role on both counts, mostly on the second one. The developer has a role on both counts too but much more so on the first count. I can't see a case ever for the Category (A, B,C ,U ) being different in the '[5837] tree survey' before and after. What can change though is the Criteria (1,2 ,3 ).

 

Ultimately here's the difficulty. One can't shift a tree from B to A to reflect its existing or proposed landscape qualities unless it miraculously develops a longer life expectancy.

 

All this is aimed at those who wish to glance at the plan and see clear-cut retain/remove trees. Real trees and real life isn't like that but few will read the report.

 

What I struggle to explain is what is meant by 'quality'. 4.4.2.2 talks about assessing 'quality and benefits' yet 4.5.2 talks in exactly the same context about 'quality and value'. Arguably all three terms are interchangeable, and indisputably they overlap. Table 1 uses 'quality' simultaneously in the context of life expectancy and the context of amenity considerations. So, you can't move a tree from B2 to B1, what do you do if it has a life expectancy of 50 years but makes little visual contribution?

 

With this particular flaw in 5837 in mind, the ability to give 'before and after' assessments is a little harder still.