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.

[Thehardwaremonkey]

Thanks for all your feedback guys, it's definitely opened my eyes to something I had no idea about before.

So, thanks all, it's much appreciated and I submitted my objection taking all of your views into account with a diplomatic statement

Cheers all

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Thanks for all your feedback guys, it's definitely opened my eyes to something I had no idea about before.

So, thanks all, it's much appreciated and I submitted my objection taking all of your views into account with a diplomatic statement

Cheers all

 

:thumbup1:

 

Don't forget to tell us how it turns out! Good luck!

[Thehardwaremonkey]

Will tell you Thursday night

[daltontrees]

I don't want to going to keep going on about this but I think you are SO wrong..

 

Simple scenario, a plot with two trees, in one corner is a 150 year old oak good condition in the other a 50 year old leylandii also in good condition. The designer has room for a house but only if one tree is removed.

 

A report in the way I was taught would grade the leylandii as "unremarkable" C it would be removed, protection for oak put in place, house built, no fuss no TPO's (the tree is not threatened) no expensive, time consuming fannying between council and designer etc.

 

A report grading them as both A's would help nobody. The designer would have no information to say which tree is worth retaining and which is not. The designer might put the house in the Oaks RPA, the TO would then TPO it, causing extra time an expense. Then might try to use engineering solutions to protect the tree etc, etc..

 

The only reason I'm keeping going is that I have been hoping to pass on several decades of battle-hardened knowledge and experience to fellow arbs. It's a pity that you are so adamant that I am wrong when I am pretty sure that I am interpreting the BS correctly.

 

Simple scenario, a school with two students, in one corner is a charismatic, articulate, energetic student, in the other an intelligent but uncharismatic, uncommunicative impractical student. They are both sitting the same degree exams, let's say arboriculture. An employer is looking to take on a graduate.

 

Through hard work and basic intelligence, they both pass the exams and get Firsts in their degrees. Which one gets the job? The first, of course, not only did he pass the criteria to be an Arb, but he is a valuable commodity to an employer.

 

Grading them as both Firsts would help nobody. The employer would have no information to say which graduate is worth employing and which is not. But an interview would put it beyond any doubt.

 

I'm going to be perfectly frank. A high category does not mean retention. It's just a ranking. Retention comes from a combination of the developer's desire to retain and the Council's insistence. The categorisation is not a pass or fail. No amount of sub-ranking or shifting the threshold will make any difference. My report on your trees would say, they're both 5837 As, but one is more valuable than the other. The very thought that a designer would not look beyond the basic categorisation or that the arb would not supplement his categorisation with additional advice about relative worth is too weird for me to envisage. Come to think of it, the very thought that a design would be based purely on categories, well it just doesn't happen.

 

5837 is just a tool, and section 4 is so coarse that its limitations are so widely recognised that it is never ever ever the last word on retention. its hardly even the first word.

 

Take my suggestions or leave them, but if anyone wishes to engage in professional practice by manipulating British Standards with the unnecessary aim of influencing or pre-determining retentions it's probably a matter of time before they develop an unenviable reputation. Being objective then being helpful with additional advice is good, manipulating the BS doesn't actually help anyone.

 

I don't know who you are so don't take this personally. It's a public forum and my comments are there for a wider audience.

 

My final comment is on 'unremarkable'. If you work throught from A (particularly good examples of their species) to B (downgraded As because of condition or lacking the special quality of As) to Cs (downgraded Bs because 'unremarkable' or a near absence of special qualities), to me there can only be one interpretation of 'unremarkable' and that is that it relates to condition or merit within a species. No matter how I read it, I cannot force it to mean that a step from A to B or to C is permitted on the basis of the relative worth of species. It is not for any of us to say whther this is appropriate or not, that's just the way it is. But I do sense that it is right not to differentiate on species. From a distance the tree-ness of a tree is largely independent of species, genus or even Family or Order. Maybe try running your two trees through the categorisation again and see what you think.

[daltontrees]

Regardless of what we think, it's subjective.

 

I take the point but would maintain that the definitions are objective but are prone to subjective interpretation. I'd go as far as to say that if they are subjective then 5837 is not a 'Standard'.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Are you laying a bait out there Jules? Have I fallen into your trap?

 

I'm sure we explored this in a previous thread.

 

(1) "....This British Standard takes the form of guidance and recommendations.

It should not be quoted as if it were a specification..."

 

(2) "...Any user claiming compliance with this British Standard is expected to be able to justify any course of action that deviates from its recommendations..."

 

There seems to be a form of contradiction between (1) & (2) and the label 'BS'. On the one hand, it's a 'standard', on another it's 'guidance & recommendations', and finally, it you want to deviate from the G&R you have to be able to justify it.

 

Wouldn't it be the case then that the contrary (but firmly held) interpretations of the assessment categories expressed previously in the thread could all be taken as justification for variance (by each party) leaving the TO to take a view on wether the categorisation is appropriate?

[daltontrees]

Are you laying a bait out there Jules? Have I fallen into your trap?

 

I'm sure we explored this in a previous thread.

 

(1) "....This British Standard takes the form of guidance and recommendations.

It should not be quoted as if it were a specification..."

 

(2) "...Any user claiming compliance with this British Standard is expected to be able to justify any course of action that deviates from its recommendations..."

 

There seems to be a form of contradiction between (1) & (2) and the label 'BS'. On the one hand, it's a 'standard', on another it's 'guidance & recommendations', and finally, it you want to deviate from the G&R you have to be able to justify it.

 

Wouldn't it be the case then that the contrary (but firmly held) interpretations of the assessment categories expressed previously in the thread could all be taken as justification for variance (by each party) leaving the TO to take a view on wether the categorisation is appropriate?

 

A Dhia's a Ghraidh! The density and complexity of your question invites almost endless responses. Let me ponder ...

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

A Dhia's a Ghraidh! ..

 

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!!

[Gary Prentice]

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!!

 

 

A Dhia's a Ghraidh! ..

 

 

'Oh God, my love'. Was my translation:lol:

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

A Dhia's a Ghraidh! ..

 

 

 

 

 

'Oh God, my love'. Was my translation:lol:

 

 

Close enough to be afraid either way Gary!