BS5837 and Veteran Trees

[Andy Clark]

Looks 3 to me. A or B depending on ERC. I don't see how the situation should affect that. It's not like a Hawthorn is going to fall over and crush someone. On what basis would it be downgraded because of proximity to populations or existing development?

 

The situation where the risk adverse-ness of the landowner outweighs the amenity value of the tree.

 

Don't forget that the majority of the decision making behind tree retention/works etc, equally depends on the brief of the survey.

 

Put that tree in a high population area then carry out a hazard evaluation survey, your "opinion" of the tree would undoubtedly change and differ from your "opinion" of the tree if it was in the same locale but you were carrying out a 5837 survey?

 

Why?

 

Same tree. Same location.

 

Similarly would your opinion undoubtedly change and be dependant on the size and scale of the development that you were surveying for.

 

5837 survey that tree in relation to a small scale bungalow extension in a dwelling rear garden, and the tree would be worthy of retention. Put that tree in the middle of a major new-town development where the tree would halt building a significant building, and the tree would be condemned.

 

 

I'm paraphrasing here, and yes, I do know the difference between what is right and what is wrong, but the point I try and make is that of human nature, and that you are never, no matter how hard one tries to be impeccable, going to take that out of the equation. Be it your own human nature, or that of the client/decision maker.

[daltontrees]

The situation where the risk adverse-ness of the landowner outweighs the amenity value of the tree.

 

Don't forget that the majority of the decision making behind tree retention/works etc, equally depends on the brief of the survey.

 

Put that tree in a high population area then carry out a hazard evaluation survey, your "opinion" of the tree would undoubtedly change and differ from your "opinion" of the tree if it was in the same locale but you were carrying out a 5837 survey?

 

Why?

 

Same tree. Same location.

 

Similarly would your opinion undoubtedly change and be dependant on the size and scale of the development that you were surveying for.

 

5837 survey that tree in relation to a small scale bungalow extension in a dwelling rear garden, and the tree would be worthy of retention. Put that tree in the middle of a major new-town development where the tree would halt building a significant building, and the tree would be condemned.

 

 

I'm paraphrasing here, and yes, I do know the difference between what is right and what is wrong, but the point I try and make is that of human nature, and that you are never, no matter how hard one tries to be impeccable, going to take that out of the equation. Be it your own human nature, or that of the client/decision maker.

 

Well thank goodness I haven't missed anything in 5837 to do with poulation densities etc. But still, that tree couldn't foreseeably cause serious harm unless a lunatic jumped into it from a hot air balloon in his underpants.

 

We all get leant on to shift our opinion. But unfortunately anything with a 3 subcategory is according to the BS and the ATF and the NPF worthy of conservation and therefore retention and calling it B instead of A is a bold step. Calling it a C is asking for trouble from the LPA, and won't even help a client advance a development proposal. It would be easier to keep it out of the 3 sub-cat than to move it down through the retention suitability subcategories.

 

According to the ATF definitions, that tree looks either ancient or veteran, or both. Is it providing the sort of scarce deadwood habitats that underlie the whole conservation approach in 5837? if so, that is unshakeable in the National Planning Framework. Calling it a Z5 or a U9 won't get a developer anywhere very far.

 

My answer might be different for Wales or Scotland, but as Arbtalk is Anglocentric I won't elaborate.

[Andy Clark]

Well thank goodness I haven't missed anything in 5837 to do with poulation densities etc. But still, that tree couldn't foreseeably cause serious harm unless a lunatic jumped into it from a hot air balloon in his underpants.

 

We all get leant on to shift our opinion. But unfortunately anything with a 3 subcategory is according to the BS and the ATF and the NPF worthy of conservation and therefore retention and calling it B instead of A is a bold step. Calling it a C is asking for trouble from the LPA, and won't even help a client advance a development proposal. It would be easier to keep it out of the 3 sub-cat than to move it down through the retention suitability subcategories.

 

According to the ATF definitions, that tree looks either ancient or veteran, or both. Is it providing the sort of scarce deadwood habitats that underlie the whole conservation approach in 5837? if so, that is unshakeable in the National Planning Framework. Calling it a Z5 or a U9 won't get a developer anywhere very far.

 

My answer might be different for Wales or Scotland, but as Arbtalk is Anglocentric I won't elaborate.

 

Oh totally. I agree 100%. The problem we tend to face though, certainly from my own experience, is that clients generally don't tend to have read any of the NPF, or have even heard of the ATF - they just see a half rotten tree that stands in the way of their development, and often take a lot of convincing to even look at it as something with any degree of value, let alone protect it at the expense of modification to the development.

 

Most of my 5837 clients have only even had a survey carried out because "the council says I need a tree survey done". They have no idea why one is needed, and have no idea of what it is I'll be surveying.

 

I have even had several clients previously where I have given sound recomendation for retention of decay/habitat type trees, not necessarily veteran, but the client has disagreed, and just gone off and sourced another surveyor who would appraise them less rigorously (and argued the bill for the work that I'd done).

 

And with over subscribed/under resourced LA's added to the mix these days, chances of a tree officer attending site to go through the report and check the recs are increasingly slim, meaning an increasing number of 5837 reports are just being taken as gospel and consent granted from a desktop.

 

So again, whilst we on here may well know what is right/wrong, ultimately we're still a minority in a big wide world where trees are still not given the recognition or reward that they warrant.

[daltontrees]

Sad but true!

[Paul Barton]

All good discussion!

 

So when does a knackered hawthorn become a veteran?!

 

How about this old Pear? DBH of 75cm, cavity at the base...