Indirect recent change to BS5837

[daltontrees]

I'd be interested to hear what anyone has to think about the following.

 

Recently I got involved in the consultation on the new British Standard BS8596 on surveying for bats in trees, because the draft . I posted a few things here but I got the impression that in keeping with the usual attitudes to BSs on Arbtalk no-one was really very interested in what the Standard had to say.

 

But in recent discussion offline with another Arbtalker, I have been able to establish the outcome. It is that according to 8596, "Arboriculturists undertaking tree surveys of potential development sites in accordance with BS 5837 should take into account the likely value of trees for bats and PRFs within their assessment of the conservation value of trees". At least BSI changed the draft in response to recommendations from me and others. But it's still not satisfactory.

 

From what I can see, 5837 doesn't mention bats. There is nothing to suggest that the presence of bats or potential for bats makes a tree have 'conservation' value. Indeed, conservation value seems to have the sense of historic or cultural significance, rather than nature conservancy value. Then 5837 suggests that ancient and veteran trees should be cataputed straight to A3, hinting that their habitat value gives them conservation value.

 

So what do folks think, is anyone (apart from me) attempting to follow this change to 5837 that has been snuck in to 8596? Or heard of any LPA knocking back a report that doesn't follow it? Has anyone made any sense of what it's all about and how to reflect batty trees from now on in their 5837 categories? Anyone care?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Starting at the end and working backwards....

 

Yes

 

No, but thinking now that you've highlighted it!

 

No, but thinking now that you've highlighted it!

 

Can it be called a change to 5837? Unless 5837 changes, surely it's not a change??

[daltontrees]

It's a BS that tells us how to do 5837 surveys. Of fuzzy status, and I would say not very helpful at all. Only discoverable by accident, but once discovered surely cannot be ignored?

[Gary Prentice]

 

 

So what do folks think, is anyone (apart from me) attempting to follow this change to 5837 that has been snuck in to 8596? Or heard of any LPA knocking back a report that doesn't follow it? Has anyone made any sense of what it's all about and how to reflect batty trees from now on in their 5837 categories? Anyone care?

 

I'm not aware of any LPA knocking back reports due to the absence of inclusion of bat habitats in the tree categorization process. I'd imagine that most would be reliant on the ecological surveys to identify these.

 

Locally it seems a box ticking exercise to supply reports for just about everything to support any application anyway.

 

I suspect I'm missing your point which has probably gone over my head anyway.

[stevelucocq]

Hi, thanks for bringing this up. In my 5837 surveys i would mention any wildlife habitat potential but this would not be to the same detail level as an ecologist. Generally i work alongside ecologists who also survey the trees for bat potential and carry out further survey work if requiried. i will try picking up a copy of the new bs, is it free or do u have a link to it? Thanks

[stevelucocq]

Also i think in the old 2005 bs5837 some mention of wildlife habitat potential was included in the survey details

[sloth]

Thanks for bringing this up Jules. I confess, I haven't seen the full document, only the micro guide. I guess I'll be purchasing a copy after all!

In my mind, when an LA requires a tree survey to 5837 I'll continue to categorize as per 5837. Until 5837 is revised to refer to 8596 or mentions bat potential as a consideration in assigning tree categories, I won't let this play on my mind too much - leave it to the ecologists to survey for bats.

I do have in my reports a caveat regarding protected species in trees for contractors to note, I think I'll be updating this.

As a side note, where does the AA guidance note on bats in trees stand now this BS and micro guide are available? The law on bat protection remains the same, so....

[Jon Heuch]

From what I can see, 5837 doesn't mention bats.

 

>> I have searched the 5837:2012 pdf - you're right no mention of bats.

 

There is nothing to suggest that the presence of bats or potential for bats makes a tree have 'conservation' value.

 

>> Your point does raise a number of issues:

 

Who is undertaking BS5837 surveys - arborists. What is their baseline competence wrt ecology, conservation and habitat assessments? Probably very low (based on training) but actually very mixed depending on experience and interest. BS8596 lists (s 5.2) a whole range of features for potential roost features. it would be possible for arborists to record these but the bureaucracy of BS8596 requires a record to be kept even if they have not been found.

 

But look where 5837 is mentioned in BS8596 - "Section 4 Other relevant considerations" - hardly mainstream to the overall BS. That section clearly gold-plates the legislation and interprets planning law and administration in a way that possibly local authorities don't acknowledge. It reads "The presence of bats or bat roosts in trees, and the importance of trees for foraging and commuting bats, should be assessed prior to a planning application being made." Really? Until this BS there was a reasonable assumption that if there were no features providing a roost there were no bats...and thus no reason to involve a bat ecologist, but this varies from Council to Council. Some have ecologists and are very active (e.g. see councils in Dorset). Others seem to much more relaxed (e.g. Luton?). Bat ecologists recognise features other than PRFs e.g. linear features as being important in the landscape. Very interesting but without evidence of bats how will an arborist know they are important? Secondly even if important are the linear features protected? Challenging for the novice arborist?

 

The problem with BS 8596 is that it assumes bats are present in trees and woodlands until you show they are not and if there is the slightest chance of a PRF that is not low grade (section 5.2) a second survey is required. It's a licence to print money.

 

Industry has already complained to the BS prior to promulgation but it fell on deaf ears. It will be interesting to hear if any LA insists on bat surveys for trees as I can imagine that if the trees are not going to be affected what is the need for a BS 8596 survey?......we can't tell if the trees are going to be affected at the time of an early BS5837 survey until the architect has made their plans ready. If the arborist gets approached late on when the architect plans are available it is easier to run things together but I am sure the developer won't be too happy to be told that a range of other surveys need to be undertaken ....just in case...as the application is just about to be submitted.

[daltontrees]

I'm not aware of any LPA knocking back reports due to the absence of inclusion of bat habitats in the tree categorization process. I'd imagine that most would be reliant on the ecological surveys to identify these.

 

Locally it seems a box ticking exercise to supply reports for just about everything to support any application anyway.

 

I suspect I'm missing your point which has probably gone over my head anyway.

 

It's gone over my head too. 8596 doesn't say the arb has to do the bat survey, (if anything it says an ecologist should) but it does say the arb has to categorise trees to reflect the conservation value of bats or bat features in them. Although that may simplify things and us arbs needn't worry about identifying bat potential, it still leaves a gaping hole - how to categorise. If you have a slightly knackered C1 that has a cavity high up, not developed enough to make it a veteran but des-res for bats, does the tree become a C3? Or a B3, or A3? Wew can all look forever but I don't think we'll find the answer in 5837 or 8596. An A or B category often means retain the tree despite development, but leaving a formerly batty woodland tree in an open space in the middle of a housing development doesn't mean it will still be used by bats, quite the opposite. So will retaining it conserve bat habitat? No.

 

A Gordian knot if ever there was one. And one that the bat and ecology people will no doubt prosper from failing to untie.

Edited December 15, 2015 by daltontrees

[daltontrees]

As a side note, where does the AA guidance note on bats in trees stand now this BS and micro guide are available? The law on bat protection remains the same, so....

 

Dunno, I imagine it's pretty much superseded by not just the micro-guide but also the BS (which requires non-specialist survey of woodlands for bat habitat potential) and the new guidance on the use of endoscopes and the like by arbs for confirming or discounting bat presence in PRFs. But I haven't seen the AA guide, I always did my bat stuff from first principles.