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.

[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?

 

The short answer for me is no. The longer answer is that, as I mentioned in reply to Paul Barton's point, that if an aadditional set of criteria are used by an individual arb, they must be clearly stated and consistently applied. But I think there is no scope for changing the fundamental criteria or 'scopes' of the categories. Fine-tune and explain, yes, change and explain, no.

 

The difficulty I was having with the other poster on here (insofar as onlookers might have wanted to adopt his approach is that (as I would have it) I am doing what the Standard says to do but he was doing what he remembered someone telling him it says. By the time an onlooker tries to defend his or her interpretation of the Standard it would be 'I am doing what someone from the internet I don't really know and whose work I havent seen said he was told once, by someone who may or may not have been involved in writing the Standard, what it should have meant'. There is scope for personal styles, but that is taking it too far.

 

I see the BS as written too vaguely to be used on its own as a specification in the contractual sense, but I think it is entirely right to specify that it is complied with or that bits of it are used exactly. That might seem contradictory, but there is an important difference. Specifications are used as the basis of contracts, anmd contracts need to be clear and enforceable or they wll give rise to unresolvable disputes between the parties. The language used in BSs (and I am thinking of course of 5837 in particular) is not set up with two or more contracting parties in mind. You can't say 'in return for a fee of £X, party A (the arb) will do all the tree bits in BS5837 and then partyy B will pay him'. There are parts of the Standard that say users of it 'should' do such-and-such or 'may'. That's no use in a contract. Using it a s a spec would require firming up which bits are to to be done and whether the shoulds and mays are to be musts. I hope that makes sense.