Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About PGTips

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  1. Sorry '10 Bears', I should have said 'Low shrinkage' (or 'Low volume change potential') not 'low plasticity. My mistake.
  2. 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!).
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Just to be clear the buildings and indeed the soil were there before the trees. People seem to think BS 5837 is only about new construction near trees but it is equally about planting near existing buildings.
  7. Sorry but I do not wish to post a picture. It is a mass planting on 2.5m centres, both ways. There are 6 or 7 species. The nearest rows, which include oaks, are 6m from a recently built (pre-trees) wall on 900mm deep footings and 8m from a 1930s wall on 400mm footings.
  8. Some further clarification: The trees were planted a year ago, so no damage yet! I am trying to get a minor modification to the planning so that some of the trees closest to my property can be removed. My property is much more affected than others.
  9. Thank you for your replies. i have tried to be concise and stick to principles rather than air too much detail in public. However, to add a little 'flesh to the bones'. I am the owner of property adjacent to the mitigation planting. (I am also a builder and have a working knowledge of planning and the Building Regs.). The trees have been planted. The soil is a Class One low plasticity clay and the foundation depth of at least some of the adjacent properties is around 400mm. NHBC4.2 gives a distance of 27m for oak, the planted distance of the nearest trees is as little as 8m. Outline PP has been granted and the planting is in response to a condition of the OPP. The area of planting is greater than that required for mitigation. I am trying to keep both developer and Planning Authority 'on side' in the hope of negotiating a compromise but am also trying to establish any legal recourse. This might have to be through seeking enforcement. Neither applicant nor the planning Authority appear to have even considered applying the yardstick of BS5837 or NHBC4.2, to which it defers. These standards are much more commonly used for construction near existing trees. I have had sympathetic words but no concrete undertaking to resolve the situation. There are further nuances but those would be for a PM. I can see that there would be legal liability were a link to be demonstrated between the planting and future damage. The degree of duty to only plant or give permission to plant in accordance with BS5837 / NHBC 4.2 is less clear. As a builder, I am obliged to comply with NHBC4.2 and the equivalent Building Regs. Any further thoughts would be welcomed. I shall try to locate the Peterborogh and MK cases.
  10. BS5837 (referring to NHBC 4.2) makes very clear recommendations as to the distance that new planting should be from existing buildings. The distances are greatest for tall, 'thirsty' deciduous trees in clay soils adjacent to buildings with shallow footings. Can anyone offer a view or legal precedent as to how much duty there is to take BS5837 into account, on the part of a developer designing, or the Planning Authority in determining a planning application? The case concerns an extensive mitigation planting carried out as part of a planning permission.


Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.