The AAIS submitted a lengthy response to the draft and requested that the
document be redrafted and recirculated for consultation in its complete
form.
Clearly, even without the obvious concerns about the editing quality, the
draft was incomplete and could not have been "implemented unchanged as a
British Standard" if no comments were received to the contrary.
The BSI standard form for responses appears cumbersome and inflexible where
significant editorial and structural changes are likely to be requested by
consultees. I expect the panel and committee will have a fair bit of work
ahead.
It would be unfortunate if people have not responded because of the enormity
of the task. This will be a standard that the arboricultural profession (and
others) will have to work with for several years and its better to get it
workable at the outset than find out the problems later.
Ben
Was it just me, or was there no guidance on how to prioritise the importance
of the graded trees? (You know - A is higher priority for retention than B
etc). Perhaps it was so obvious I missed it.
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
