bs5837

[Chris at eden]

Some Arb consultants advertise their "% success rate" with planning work i.e bs5837 style surveys and reports. I wonder whether they just refuse to work for clients with unworkable design proposals?

 

Let's remember, when you're engaged by a client to do a pre-development tree survey (and possibly the AIA and AMS) you are being engaged as one element in a process which has one primary aim: to get planning permission! So, I would certainly suggest solutions where appropriate.

 

I find the main problem with this work is that the client (and sometimes the LA) either don't know what they need or give a very vague instruction.

 

 

I always wonder about that. That problem with statistics is that they can be manipulated to give a false impression. If they are saying that they get approval for all their projects I don't see it but then again I don't see that as my issue. If the application is validated based on my AIA being acceptable then I consider that a success. If the client has ignored my advice and it is then refused I don't see that as my issue either. If its a none starter I tell them. If I can work something up I do.

 

I had one recently with about 50 trees the majority of which were cat C and U. Self set stuff mostly. There were about 10 B cat trees so I advised them to stay away with the design. They ignored my advice so the app requires the removal of all trees. I then wrote up the AIA objectively saying that the impact of tree losses is high (for the B cat) and explained that there is no point in saying otherwise as the TO will see straight through it. They accepted this and paid the fee with no issue.

 

It isn't my job to get them planning permission. I give them advice on feasibility and point them in the right direction. The rest is up to them.

[Chris at eden]

Yeah, just found my old 2005 BS during clearout just now. It seemed to allow a 20% offset if if it was deemed tha tthe tree could tolerate it. As such the offsetting was a decision to accommodate design, not to reflect tree troot morphology. No wonder it was abused and had to be changed!

 

Bang on Jules, and what was worse is that many consultants often called it a 20% reduction not an offset. So that they used to trim off 20% all the way around. This was a common theme that I used to see in planning applications at the time.