5837 and woodland

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

No need to survey every tree. Here's an extract from the BS:

 

4.4.2.3 Trees growing as groups or woodland should be identified and assessed

as such where the arboriculturist determines that this is appropriate. However,

an assessment of individuals within any group should still be undertaken if there

is a need to differentiate between them, e.g. in order to highlight significant

variation in attributes (including physiological or structural condition).

 

NOTE The term “group” is intended to identify trees that form cohesive

arboricultural features either aerodynamically (e.g. trees that provide companion

shelter), visually (e.g. avenues or screens) or culturally, including for biodiversity (e.g.

parkland or wood pasture), in respect of each of the three subcategories (see 4.5).

 

4.4.2.4 The categorization of a group or woodland can reflect a future potential

that is contingent on appropriate management being undertaken to promote

the development of the better specimens, based upon established arboricultural

and silvicultural principles. Such management requirements should be noted

under “general observations” within the schedule and included within the

post-development management plan (see 8.8.3).

 

NOTE Typically, the works will need to be phased over a number of years so as to

maintain the necessary degree of companion shelter.

 

Hmmm, as a non-expert I hasten to add, does the document not suggest earlier on that you SHOULD record, and tag as appropriate, all trees over 75 or 150mm (in woodlands etc.)

 

I remember being faced with this prospect many years ago as it was the clients instruction / "brief", a landscape architect, however thankfully (BIG PHEW) pragmatism won the day and I didn't have to.

 

Tom - speak with your client and explain the "whys n wherefores", remembering BS5837 is recommendations and guidance, albeit very importantly so, to be interpreted and applied by the 'expert'...n hopefully common sense will prevail. Good luck.

 

Paul, I hope you're well and sorry, I cannot meaningfully contribute to your RPA question. Ask me something about PUWER though and "I'm your man!"

 

Best..

Paul

[daltontrees]

Ha! Thanks for the un-enlightening discussion chaps!

 

Me, I was waiting for Tom D's reply to your question. I'm pretty sure I know the answer, as I have just written a 20 page practice note for myself to pin down thse sorts of things. I'll maybe find time to answer tomorrow. In the meantime I agree with Paul that 4.4.2.3 and 4.4.2.4 do not take away the need to identify individual trees.

[daltontrees]

Does anyone have a definitive answer as to wether it is necessary to tag and survey every tree in a woodland area for a 5837 survey? We have been asked to survey a large is area of mostly sycamore re-gen, many trees all of maybe 200-300mm. It would seem pointless to survey every one and make more sense to survey all those requiring work and then make general recommendations regarding the rest.

 

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

 

Hmm, the more I think about this the more it seems like a Catch 22, how do you know which ones require work unless you survey them all?

[Jon Heuch]

Does anyone have a definitive answer as to whether it is necessary to tag and survey every tree in a woodland area for a 5837 survey? It would seem pointless to survey every one and make more sense to survey all those requiring work and then make general recommendations regarding the rest.

 

You are quite right to ask the question. I suggest that a little pragmatism is required as there is no definitive answer - the wording of BS5837 doesn't give a clear steer. I have been in the same situation and can say I have wasted resources getting involved in this sort of thing.

 

Questions to ask:

 

1) is it quite clear which trees are likely to be affected i.e. is an architect, planner (consultant or council) possibly going to say at a later date, let's move everything my 1, 5 or 10 metres? You thought you knew which trees "require work" but now the goalposts have changed? And are service runs likely to come into the site from unknown locations? You can't answer the latter in most cases until later, but it is an issue.

 

2) how significant is the landscape loss going to be? how sensitive as to how many trees are removed? will it matter if a few more trees are removed than are indicated on your plan?

 

3) is there a topographic plan showing the location of all the trees to be surveyed? If not, BS5837 rules have been "broken" so confusion is possible as no-one really knows which trees people are talking about. Surveying woodland trees without a topo plan is a recipe for confusion. Please tag the trees!

 

4) is it likely that a contractor will need to be instructed to remove individual trees, rather than just lines marked on the ground and told to remove all trees within the lines? If you need to point out individual trees it is really useful to have tags.

 

5) What's the tree officer in the Council likely to accept? Makes sense to cut corners if practicable but if the Council will only accept a full BS5837 someone has saved money, only to end up wasting months as discussions with the Council are based on inadequate information. I've been there, I can tell you! I've been in woodlands where the topographic survey has been expanded on at least three times and still didn't cover every tree. Two years on, planning permission has been agreed but still hasn't been granted properly.

 

I always think twice before accepting a BS5837 with a woodland - it can be simple at one extreme but at the other it can be a tree by tree nightmare.

[daltontrees]

God stuff, Jon.

 

I note your comment about the rules being 'broken'. I think it is even simpler than you portray it. 5837 clause 4.2.4 says the topographic survey "should record ... the position of all trees within the site with a stem diameter of 75 mm or more ... ". It is absolutely clear therefore that the designer should have this information to hand. The arb adds to this, and if the trees haven't been plotted then he must do it. And it is not that uncommon either to be asked to do this. I did it today for 60 trees on a development site, I was only provided with an OS based site plan.

5837 then says at clause 4.4.2.1 "The tree survey should include all trees included in the topographical survey (see 4.2), as well as any that might have been missed". This really underlines that all trees must be made known to the designer. It then adds that "The trees should be sequentially numbered and, where appropriate, tagged...". And "Trees growing as groups or woodland should be identified and assessed as such where the arboriculturist determines that this is appropriate. However, an assessment of individuals within any group should still be undertaken if there is a need to differentiate between them...". In my mind it is fairly(though not absolutely) clear that the only interpretation of this that stands up to scrutiny is that all the treees have to be looked at, and the only relaxation on the onbligations of the arb is that a single category/sub-category can be given to a group rather than each tree within it. It seems to offer the felxibility to say the whole group is, say, A except trees X, Y and Z which are, say, B.

 

It's a fundamental of 5837 tha the arb should not be guessing which trees are lilely to go and which are likely to stay. If there no possibility of them having to be removed to accommodate a development, the arb should be told this and arguably the trees shouldn't be in the survey at all. Why would they be?

 

In conclusion, I think that 5837 says all trees need to be plotted, numbered, assessed and categorised though not all of them need to be tagged and they can be categorised in groups.

 

And I stand by my question about the Catch 22, how can only the trees that need work be recorded or tagged, if they need to be surveyed really pretty comprehensively befoer recommending teh expense of tree work to a client and accepting liability for any defects that have been missed? I'm sure we've all been asked to do this sort of 'negative survey' before or something like it, but it's not a 5837 survey, even if 5837 is being used as a specification for the data to be recorded. Personally I wouldn't accept such a commision lightly or without some sort of bespoke modification of my duty of care.