Tree Survey - doing the right thing and developing mutually exclusve?

[Mike1234]

Hi

 

I wonder whether anyone might be kind enough to give me some advice?

 

Next door adjacent and next door opposite have both recently succeeded in obtaining planning permission for replacing what is there currently with more sqm of concrete (i.e. housing units). One of them is an almost identical plot to ours - 0.25 acres in size. The first we knew about this was when they felled three very attractive (IMO) oak trees and _all_ the other trees on the site.

 

The 0.25 site is now midway through construction which isn't great and the other is a much larger site which hasn't started yet but will apparently take 18 months to develop. Rather remain a corner of a huge construction site for a long time followed by a tripling in neighbours, we thought we'd look into doing something similar.

 

I obtained the services of a serving tree officer from a different council who also runs his own arborist consultancy. The survey was completed recently and overall there were twenty-something trees and a 3 or 4 tree groups. All the trees and groups were given C1-C3 except one tree categorised as B/C. In addition a collection of around 8 trees were categorised as C individually in the schedule but in the comments in the report it was stated that:

"Individually the trees at the front of the property have been categorised as ‘C’ under the guidelines on the British Standard 5837 (2012) ‘Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction’, however, collectively; it would be acceptable to treat them as a ‘category B’ group in light of their prominence to the street scene."

 

Interestingly (to me at least) is that one of the trees given a C1 but inside the "B cluster" was called out as dangerous by the aborist who conducted the survey of the much larger site adjacent (I only got chatting because he entered our property to take photos of his client's territory). The tree in question is leaning and has roots exposed on the opposite direction of the lean and the report I have from my arborist states in red that "Canopy reduction of 4M required to reduce wind loading".

 

So, if I was a ruthless developer, presumably I'd do what they did in the plot opposite and slaughter all 20-30 trees (none have TPOs), then put in a planning application thus completely by passing the tree officer in my council.

 

More specifically, there are eight trees in the "B cluster of C individuals". I've reduced the building size/position but I can't see a way of avoiding the removal of 3 of the those in that group (two plus the "dangerous" one). Overall the total reduction of trees in the whole site listed in the report would be less than 10%-20%. So another question is would that likely be frowned upon?

 

As I understand it in layman's terms, the issue is that the trees in that cluster provide screening and are therefore of amenity value (they certainly are - we've lived behind them for years!) but that individually each tree is of lesser merit.

 

Many thanks for reading and thanks in advance for any advice.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Have you had a conversation with the person that did the survey? They are probably best placed to understand your questions and provide a view in the context of the area / development proposal.

 

Unless you can't / don't want to, that'd be the best place to start I'd say.....

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Have you had a conversation with the person that did the survey? They are probably best placed to understand your questions and provide a view in the context of the area / development proposal.

 

Unless you can't / don't want to, that'd be the best place to start I'd say.....

 

 

And the architect!

[daltontrees]

My first impression is that a cluster of C1 individuals should be C2.

[treequip]

(Is) doing the right thing and developing mutually exclusve?

 

That depends on your point of view.

 

Most developers want to wring the maximum profit possible so that's doing the right thing from their point of view

[Mike1234]

Thanks for the replies.

 

I've only suggested that the three trees in the group of eight might need removing not because they would be in the way as such, but because the additional driveway would encroach into the rap more than 20%. As a novice/laymen it does seem a shame to me that the choice seems to be between either ensuing less than 20% rpa encroachment or "not retaining" and I assume that is the case regardless of whether the tree in question is a super prime A or a C1 ?

 

Even if felling of the those three trees is allowed, wouldn't it be preferable to use suitable web/no-dig methods to cover say 50% rather than remove?

 

Regarding the comment about discuss with my tree consultant - I'm currently very anxiously holding my breath whilst he takes his time to get back to me. So far he simply sent me a quick email suggesting that the enlarged hard surfacing at the front might be an issue and mentioned the parts of the BS standard that refer to the 20% calculation. I've since added moved the parking line back such that at least 5 of those 8 trees are within the 20% rpa calculations and now waiting for his reply.

 

I have wondered though, if by using the services of a serving tree officer, he might be possibly more strict than a commercial arborist? Certainly I know of one tree he gave a C1 to but the aroborist I spoke to (as above) implied verbally it would be a U (well, he just said it was dangerous and should be removed). The arborist's report also uses colourful language to describe the road we live "....an historic hunting route, a continuation of RoadA with plantings going back to the 1800s..." despite RoadA being over a mile away with beautiful mature oaks but my road (a 30mph continuation) having a complete mix of frontages some with and some without tree screening and none anywhere close to the RoadA mentioned. I suppose I wonder whether he's acting in my interests, the tree's interest or in the council's interest?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Your closing sentence intrigues me since I'm not sure I can determine what your interest actually is?

 

Do you want to develop or conserve, or develop with a conscience for conservation or just conserve?

 

Does your development potential offer the opportunity to improve the species / age range of trees by removal of that which might currently be considered unremarkable?

 

Also, it's worth a thought that the person who wrote your report, whose motives you're potentially unclear of, could be reading this...,

 

Interesting stuff and great detail, please keep it coming 👍🏻