New planting - required to comply with BS5837 ?

[PGTips]

I know what the soil is - low plasticity clay - I had the analysis done before I built my house.

Putting the question from a somewhat different angle might the Planning Authority reasonably have expected the developer to have followed BS5837 in creating and carrying out his planting plan. The 'plan' had no drawing and basically said little more than 'the field will be planted with x species at 2.5m centres'.

 

My strong impression is that there is no record of my question having been raised before and yet is must happen at a smaller scale all the time.

[PGTips]

NB According to NHBC 4.2 this is a shrinkable clay.

When you feed all the data into NHBC 4.2 out comes 27m for oaks.

 

There seems to be an attitude that NHBC 4.2 must be used by builders but can be ignored by tree-planters although BS5837 specifically says otherwise.

[10 Bears]

I know what the soil is - low plasticity clay - I had the analysis done before I built my house.

 

Low plasticity is not the same as being shrinkable.

 

The plasticity rating refers to the potential water needed to turn the clay from an adhesive bound structure to a liquid state. So, low plasticity suggests that your soil remains more tightly bound in higher water states, so is therefore less likely to be a factor in land slip or whatever.

 

Although similar, the shrinkability limit (SL) refers to the potential of the soil to change its volume as a response to water content, in the usual shrink-heave manner. High SL potential is only found in very few types of soil that are mainly in the south east, hence the names, London Clay, Oxford Clay, Gault Clay, Kimmeridge Clay etc.

 

The relevant BS5837 and NHBC guidelines aim to prevent tree/building conflict in relation to clay with a high potential for shrink/heave and tree proximity, hence without shrinkable clay there is no case to argue IMO.

[10 Bears]

Putting the question from a somewhat different angle might the Planning Authority reasonably have expected the developer to have followed BS5837 in creating and carrying out his planting plan.

 

In short, yes, this would be the usual course of action - although if very good other practices could be put in place that were obviously to the benefit of the plan/scheme, then the TO would potentially not insist on full adherence.

[10 Bears]

My strong impression is that there is no record of my question having been raised before and yet is must happen at a smaller scale all the time.

 

Certainly with BS5837 there is the potential for interpretation as crucially, these are only "recommendations".

[PGTips]

So it seems to be a bit of a fudge between good practice and obligation.

I am not expressing any view of my own on what is shrinkable.

I have fed the data and soil analysis into NHBC 4.2 and accepted the result.

 

What is TO?

Thanks for all your contributions.

[10 Bears]

Sorry, Tree Officer (at the council)

[PGTips]

Thanks. I am almost certain the District Council (the planning authority) TO was not consulted on the application. This was possibly because the County Council Ecology Officer had oversight but from an ecological rather than a BS5837 point of view, So the matter fell between the cracks, (in the planning system, not the clay!).

[PGTips]

Sorry '10 Bears', I should have said 'Low shrinkage' (or 'Low volume change potential') not 'low plasticity.

My mistake.

[treepro]

Yes it is i am totally agree with you . very informative ideas and thanks for sharing with us .