What to do when TO disagrees with 5837 classifications

[daltontrees]

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

 

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..

 

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.

 

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.

 

This seems to be going round in circles. You and others seem to be saying that 5837 and the classifications are subjective, yet there is some umbrage being taken that TOs are disageeing with said subjective judgements. If you and others are right that it is subjective, then disagreement is inevitable. By definition.

 

But 5837 isn't subjective, it's meant to be objective but is susceptible to subjectivity. That's not the same thing as it being subjective. It is meant to give sufficiently defined parameters for classifications so that individual assessors even with their personal biases and leanings will reach about the same conclusions, and if they don't their conclusions will be of doubtful objective value.

 

And anyone who tries to bend 5837 to support an existing development proposal may and probably will get busted eventually. 5837 is there to form a basis for protecting trees against construction etc. if that's what is desired. Occasionally it is used by designers and clients who recognise the benefits of trees within developments, even when no planning constraints arise. But mostly it is used as a tool by LPAs to save the benefits of trees from the pressures, greed and ignorance of designers and developers. In that circumstance, is anyone really surprised that opinions differ on the value of each tree?

 

That's what planning appeals are there to resolve. Gradings or categorisations aren't absolute, they're relative. They can't be used as a yes/no. When you say "The whole point of the AIA is to inform the designer which trees to protect and which can be felled" all I can say is that's not the point of AIAs at all. It is to be able to demonstrate, generally after selection of retention has been done, how the trees would affect development and how development would affect the trees.

 

Basically an AIA without a specific development proposal is largely futile, but 5837 provides for an assessment of relative retention desirablity regardless of any specific development proposal.

 

"But surely our role as arb consultants is to make informed decisions easier for non arbs."? I guess your TO is not a non arb, and in this case is, in effect, the decision maker.

[daltontrees]

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?

 

I agree.

[Jon Heuch]

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.

 

The issue of subjectivity should not be seen as a "problem" if dealt with clearly and transparently. The rules are this:

 

i) Layout the facts; focus on the facts which reflect how the various criteria in the BS5837 Cascade chart e..g "impaired condition", "life expectancy" etc. Clearly there is an element of subjectivity for issues such as life expectancy and you might need to be clear what you mean by life expectancy e.g. if a veteran tree is falling apart but will be still alive would it have a LE > 40 years (don't start LE is a big issue).

ii) Do not state an opinion without reference to the facts

iii) Show clearly the link between your opinion and the facts. Your opinion becomes a lot more impregnable once clearly based on undisputed facts.

 

BS5837 reports are not full reports that allow you to state all the reasons why you might classify a tree as A/B/C/U, but if there is a dispute use the basic rules above and you should be able to see through the mud of a disagreement.

 

Jon

[benedmonds]

L

 

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

 

"Unremarkable " is a direct quote from BS5837.. I thought I hadn't come up with it... .. Page 9 in description of category C1 trees...