Bs rating, I'm confused now...

[Thehardwaremonkey]

I don't know if I'm being treated as an idiot or not -help!

 

I have a single eucalyptus cider gum tree in my garden, it's stem is 510 in radius at 1.5m height, approx 12m tall and in a healthy state. Which makes an RP radius of about 6 metres(?).

The tree is on my land and close to a neighbouring development, so has been given a bs5837 rating of C3 by them/their report for the following reasons, is this correct, does lack of biodiversity make it a C3 tree always as a Eucalyptus?

 

Their response to me when I queried the category...;

With regards to the categorisation of the tree, this decision was made

following an appraisal of the tree, the species and its location.

Eucalyptus offer no foraging value to our native invertebrates and are of

little value to local biodiversity therefore the tree does not have the

'material or other cultural value' that would require it to be categorised

as a 'B'. Eucalyptus as a species are also particularly vulnerable to wind

throw which will direct future management in the future and limit its

wider amenity value.

[Gary Prentice]

Personally I think it's a diversionary tactic!

 

What was the original question?

[benedmonds]

Personally I think it's a diversionary tactic!

Personally I think we have to agree to disagree..

[daltontrees]

A Dhia - oh God, for heaven's sake

 

Ghraidh - darling

 

Don't ponder too long, unless I've got the translation wrong, I'm not sure I want the answer!!

 

Thanks for clarification, Gary, yes it just means 'Dear Lord!'

[daltontrees]

Personally I think we have to agree to disagree..

 

I was just trying to help you and anyone else that has come up against the apparent need to sub-sub-categorise trees. I'm using the BS correctly because among other things I don't pick up a pen until I have understood, digested, mulled over and dry-run things. You do it your way. It's easy to find problems, solutions are a little more elusive. i have been through this problem witha fine-tooth comb and it is apparent that there can only be one solution.

[benedmonds]

I was just trying to help you and anyone else that has come up against the apparent need to sub-sub-categorise trees. I'm using the BS correctly because among other things I don't pick up a pen until I have understood, digested, mulled over and dry-run things. You do it your way. It's easy to find problems, solutions are a little more elusive. i have been through this problem witha fine-tooth comb and it is apparent that there can only be one solution.

 

I was just trying to help you and anyone else writing reports. I'm using the BS correctly. The way I was taught makes more sense to me and I am pretty sure they were part of the team that wrote the BS. Like I said we have to disagree.

Edited July 14, 2015 by benedmonds

[Paul Barton]

This has been interesting! I wonder if the disparity between opinions of how to categorise trees according to their quality (that one is easy) and value (ooh, that's more tricky!) has something to do with section 4.4.2.2.

 

4.4.2.2 Individual trees, groups of trees and woodlands should be assessed for their quality and benefits within the context of proposed development, in a transparent, understandable and systematic way. The quality of each tree or group of trees should be recorded by allocating it to one of four categories

(see 4.5). The categories should be differentiated on the tree survey plan by colours (see 4.5 and Tables 1 and 2), and/or by suffixing the category adjacent to the tree identification number on the tree survey plan (e.g. 217-A, 218-C etc; see 4.4.2.1). (my underlining)

 

Could it be that Benedmonds is thinking ahead to the desirability of the trees within a proposed development, whereas Jules is more focussing more on appraising the trees in their existing context?

 

I have always found this part of the BS puzzling to be honest.

 

And does the sentence about having a 'transparent, understandable and systematic way' leave the door open for arbs to use their interpretation of the guidance, so long as they explain their approach in the report?

[daltontrees]

This has been interesting! I wonder if the disparity between opinions of how to categorise trees according to their quality (that one is easy) and value (ooh, that's more tricky!) has something to do with section 4.4.2.2.

 

4.4.2.2 Individual trees, groups of trees and woodlands should be assessed for their quality and benefits within the context of proposed development, in a transparent, understandable and systematic way. The quality of each tree or group of trees should be recorded by allocating it to one of four categories

(see 4.5). The categories should be differentiated on the tree survey plan by colours (see 4.5 and Tables 1 and 2), and/or by suffixing the category adjacent to the tree identification number on the tree survey plan (e.g. 217-A, 218-C etc; see 4.4.2.1). (my underlining)

 

Could it be that Benedmonds is thinking ahead to the desirability of the trees within a proposed development, whereas Jules is more focussing more on appraising the trees in their existing context?

 

I have always found this part of the BS puzzling to be honest.

 

And does the sentence about having a 'transparent, understandable and systematic way' leave the door open for arbs to use their interpretation of the guidance, so long as they explain their approach in the report?

 

I agree it can be puzzling. The important bit for me is that it says 'the context of proposed development', not 'the context of a proposed development' or 'the context of the proposed development'. The context is tehrefore that there is development proposed, and that trees may need to be removed, protected or avoided. My view is that it allows the class of development to be contemplated, but not the layout. So, trees in a residential development site can be assessed for quality in the context of them either enhancing or detracting from residential amenity.

 

Apart from close up, the shape and size of a tree and how it affects buildings is largely the same whatever the species. Yes it's valid for a designer to differentiate between species at the detailed design stage, but it's not for an arb to pre-empt that by creating his or her own arbitrary sub-sub categories for some species.

[daltontrees]

I was just trying to help you and anyone else writing reports. I'm using the BS correctly. The way I was taught makes more sense to me and I am pretty sure they were part of the team that wrote the BS. Like I said we have to disagree.

 

OK, we disagree. I haven't been told how to interpret it, I am just using the BS by the ordinary rules of the english language, with a bit of Gaelic thrown in now and again.

 

The part quoted by Paul Barton is relevant. 'transparent, understandable and systematic way'. If your reports say that you are differentiating between species in terms of quality or value, the reader will know that and can make allowances for your system.

[Gary Prentice]

I was just trying to help you and anyone else writing reports. I'm using the BS correctly. The way I was taught makes more sense to me and I am pretty sure they were part of the team that wrote the BS. Like I said we have to disagree.

 

OK, we disagree. I haven't been told how to interpret it, I am just using the BS by the ordinary rules of the english language, with a bit of Gaelic thrown in now and again.

 

The part quoted by Paul Barton is relevant. 'transparent, understandable and systematic way'. If your reports say that you are differentiating between species in terms of quality or value, the reader will know that and can make allowances for your system.

 

 

Jules,you're:banghead:

 

 

I have similar conversations with my wife, she's right, I'm wrong.(according to her)

[daltontrees]

Jules,you're:banghead:

 

 

I have similar conversations with my wife, she's right, I'm wrong.(according to her)

 

Ah but a marriage license is the most powerful trump card there is. I am reminded of a quote I heard once something like, arguing with a woman is like trying to read an airmail edition of The Times in a strong wind.