DL: First, to respond to Glyn's comments, I apologise for adding to the
confusion about 'constraints'. As Glyn points out, "constraints" are
mentioned in various parts of Clause 4 of the new version of BS 5837; i.e. in
relation to the survey of trees in their CURRENT context. It is, however,
clear from the last sentence of 4.1.1 that the survey should be completed
independently of any proposal for development. For this reason, I agree with
Glyn that 4.4.2.2 seems problematic, since it jumps ahead to the context of
the proposed development, which really belongs in Clause 5.
Returning to Jerry's concern about the definition Category "U" trees
(unsuitable for retention in the CURRENT context), I agree that few trees
genuinely fit this definition. It is, however, important to identify any
trees that genuinely qualify as "U", since they could pose a serious risk in
relation to potential tree failure or to the spread of certain pests and
pathogens.
Jerry's example of a collapsing, ugly but healthy and wildlife-rich goat
willow illustrates a potential difficulty for the surveyor. Nevertheless,
the principle is that (as Glyn neatly puts it) we need to know "What have we
got?". We can't expect planning committees to make wise decisions if they
don't know "what we have got", even this includes some inconveniently
sprawling, ugly or hard-to-record trees. According to 4.5.7, these could even
include trees that would qualify as Category "U", but can be upgraded because
of "identifiable conservation, heritage or landscape value". If, despite its
teeming wildlife, Jerry's goat willow is deemed unsuitable for retention when
Clause 5 is implemented, so be it!
-----Original Message-----
From: Glyn Thomas [mailto:glyn.thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk]
Sent: 30 April 2012 09:28
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: RE: BS5837 categories
<<DL: A planning decision ought to take account of the existing value of
trees on the site. This is why the trees should be categorised in the
context of the current land use (as explained in the 2005 version of BS 5837
but not in the 1991 version, which was not clear in this respect). The
proposed context should then be taken into account in order to identify the
constraints.>>
Hi David,
I think I agree....at least until your last point.
As I see it, the process falls neatly into three separate stages. What have
we got?, what will we have? And what is the difference?
Stage 1. An assessment of the trees in the current context. It is this
assessment that identifies the constraints and as suggested at 4.4.1.1 of
BS5837: 2012 should be made 'independently of any specific proposals for
development'.
(In this regard, the guidance at 4.4.2.2 that at this stage
'...trees.....should be assessed.....within the context of proposed
development' for me is problematic; because it is premature. This should
come at section 5)
Stage 2. A similar assessment of the trees in the proposed context.
Identifying all of the various positive and negative effects.
Stage 3. A comparison of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 assessments. The
difference between the two being the overall impact of the development on
trees. It is this evaluation that feeds into the planning process and
informs decisions.
Your last point seems to infer that the proposed context influences the
constraints, but it shouldn't because the constraints are set at Stage 1.
Regards
Glyn Thomas
--
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/
--
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/
