What to do when TO disagrees with 5837 classifications

[benedmonds]

I have had comments disagreeing with the categories I have assigned to trees. I've done plenty of 5837's over the years and this is the first time it has happened to me..

 

I admit I have fairly high standards and an A grade tree has to be a particularly good specimen. This means my B grade trees have to be pretty good quality and C grade trees are therefore everything else that is not a U.

 

I don't personally like the category C classification as "trees of low quality" as this implies that the trees are in poor condition, where to me anything that shouldn't be a constraint to development should go in this category..

 

As an example this particular TO wants to classify 19m big beech (lovely tree but.) with dw throughout crown, split on trunk from 1-2m on W side and occluded bark at junction of several large limbs at 4 and 5m as an A grade tree. It is going to fail at this point at some time IMO... Surely the defects would prevent it from being an exceptional A grader?

 

They also wanted to upgrade a dozen of my C grade trees to B including a grotty 14m lawson cypress with a snapped limb? Yes the tree is a moderate quality lawsons specimen. But surely it should not be a constraint to developed and therefore graded as a C? Would you often grade garden apples and self set field maples as B's..?

 

I know the classifications are subjective and without seeing the trees any comments will be even more so.. Am I being to harsh on theses trees.. Has anyone experience of arguing the categories..

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Presumably they're going to follow through and TPO them then, which would seem the logical next step...and perhaps to see if they really do think they're worth it?

 

Sorry Ben, no experience with BS85837 categorization but I have heard (many) others say how subjective it is.

 

Good luck..

Paul

[daltontrees]

to me anything that shouldn't be a constraint to development should go in this category.

 

Maybe that's going a bit too far, 5837 doesn't have pass-mark and it's not for the arb to pre-empt constraints, it's the LPA's role to decide whether to hold out for retention, and for the applicant to appeal if it disagrees with the outcome.

 

What can you do? Arguing the toss with the TO will either result in a bit of come and go on some of the trees or the shutters will get pulled down right away. We don't know if the trees are a constraingt and/or whether another layout or tree protection measures could result in an equally viable development. There's a lot we don't know. Committee could reject the TO's recommendations for example. Is there a design that you are working around? That never looks good.

[benedmonds]

5837 doesn't have pass-mark, it's not for the arb to pre-empt constraints,

Isn't that exactly the point of the AIA and Tree Constraints Plan? It is for an Arb to inform the client/designers which trees are worth protecting, how much space they need and which are not worth protecting.. If you grade an unremarkable (all be it healthy) leyland cypress as a B1 then how will the client understand that it's an unremarkable tree that is no loss?

[Tom D]

I'd have to dig out my copy of 5837 but I.m pretty sure the TO is wrong on the A tree, I think any significant defect will drop it to B status unless it is a veteran or perhaps has some historical significance...

[daltontrees]

Isn't that exactly the point of the AIA and Tree Constraints Plan? It is for an Arb to inform the client/designers which trees are worth protecting, how much space they need and which are not worth protecting.. If you grade an unremarkable (all be it healthy) leyland cypress as a B1 then how will the client understand that it's an unremarkable tree that is no loss?

 

Long before the AIA and the TCP are contemplated, the grading is undertaken. The retention desirability of the trees is ranked. Basically saying the As are more desirable than the Bs which are more desirable than the Cs. On that basis, the TO may just be moving a few trees up to a higher rank. That's his/her prerogative. If he/she is effectively shifting all or most of your grading up a level, well again that's his/her prerogative. In most senses this makes less difference than moving a few trees up, because it doesn't differentiate between trees. None of this changes the pass-mark issue. I.e. there is no pass mark. It's the Council's call. And then your client's call to appeal against a refusal or whaat it considers unreasonable tree protection or retention conditions.

 

I don't recall the word 'unremarkable' in 5837. That would be a highly subjective definition. Doesn't it talk instead about value and quality, life expectancy and freedom from defects? And doesn't the Planning Act talk instead about amenity and expediency? The Council has the public's interests (including the eventual occupiers of a development) in mind whilst the developer has the developer's interests in mind, and the latter only retains trees if they will increase profits. It is a miracle that the two ever come vaguely into the same categories of retention desirability.

 

If you grade an unremarkable (all be it healthy) leyland cypress as anything less than B1 then how will the Council understand that an objective view is being taken on the ranking on which it can base its decision?

[daltontrees]

I'd have to dig out my copy of 5837 but I.m pretty sure the TO is wrong on the A tree, I think any significant defect will drop it to B status unless it is a veteran or perhaps has some historical significance...

 

Having not seen the tree or the context, I don't know how any of us can say the TO is right or wrong on this 'lovely tree'.

[slack ma girdle]

Here in lies the problem with 5837 reports; it is subjective, and based on the persons view who is writing the report.

You are the one writing the report Ben so it is your opinion, others will disagree. Provided you can back up your reasons, then the tree officer should not be able to change the categories.

Remember you are the professional consulting Arb, he or she (tree officer) is not.

Happy arguing.

[benedmonds]

Long before the AIA and the TCP are contemplated, the grading is undertaken.

 

I don't agree..The grading may take place first, but surely the AIA and TCP are written about the the tree stock and are directly informed by the categorization/gradings..?

Fig 1 from the BS,

tree survey>Tree categorization>identify tree constraints and RPA's

 

The retention desirability of the trees is ranked. Basically saying the As are more desirable than the Bs which are more desirable than the Cs.

 

That was my point.. If a garden tree of little value but of "moderate quality" (to quote the BS)has to be graded as a B the designers are not going to have the information to make informed decisions as to which trees are worth keeping and which can be sacrificed..

 

If you grade an unremarkable (all be it healthy) leyland cypress as anything less than B1 then how will the Council understand that an objective view is being taken on the ranking on which it can base its decision?

 

I don't understand this? The whole point of the AIA is to inform the designer which trees to protect and which can be felled. Classifying trees A, B and C is always going to be subjective.

 

I don't recall the word 'unremarkable' in 5837. That would be a highly subjective definition.

 

Unremarkable is my own not from the BS. The whole of the BS is subjective. . But surely our role as arb consultants is to make informed decisions easier for non arbs.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Here in lies the problem with 5837 reports; it is subjective, and based on the persons view who is writing the report.

 

You are the one writing the report Ben so it is your opinion, others will disagree. Provided you can back up your reasons, then the tree officer should not be able to change the categories.

 

Remember you are the professional consulting Arb, he or she (tree officer) is not.

 

Happy arguing.

 

 

Subjective v Objective.....?

 

I vaguely remember a thread which tried to unravel this a while back.

 

From memory, I think the suggestion was something like - the arb reports should be an objective record of that which is observed on the day and the subjective interpretation of that report falls to the TO who makes recommendations which are further subjectively interpreted by the planning case officer.

 

I'm not entirely sure I know if the arb reports are technically subjective or objective?