The LPA could insist on the retention of part or all of a tree legitimately
given a U - the British Standard allows for this in para. 4.5.7, plus the LPA
could make a case for it's preservation irrespective of the BS
categorisation. The LPA could make a TPO as long as the tree is alive and
makes a demonstrable contribution to 'amenity'. The developer could challenge
this but as long as the order was in effect, could only remove it under a
5-day notice if there was good evidence that the extent of decay required
felling, as opposed to lesser works, to address the risk.
'Irremediable' is open to interpretation, and both BS categorisation and
reasonable management are so site- and tree-specific I wouldn't want to
comment much on this beech without seeing it.
Jeff Mashburn
Tree Officer
T: 01892 XXX XXX (Ext 4492)
E: jeff.mashburn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.gov.uk
Town Hall, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN1 1RS
www.tunbridgewells.gov.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info <uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
On Behalf Of Bill Anderson
Sent: 21 October 2020 16:25
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Re: BS5837 - how to categorise a hazardous tree with a known bat
roost in it?
How would the LPA disagree? it's got a "serious irremediable defect." They
could not reasonably stick a TPO on it. And most LA (not LPA) Officers of my
acquaintance would condemn it. Round here (Sheffield) the LPA would ask for
an LA Arb (who all work in the Parks section) to have a look and in my
experience they're way more risk-averse than most. I accept that away from a
road or anything else there might be an alternative course of action but for
Bettina's described situation it's a "U" and there's no other option.
Also to make A3 it's got to have 40 years life expectancy, which means
without extensive remedial work, not "40 years if you prop it up in the
manner of the Major Oak."
Bill.
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 15:49, AV Arboriculture <mike@xxxxxxx.co.uk> wrote:
It depends on the context. If the tree can be retained in some form
with a low probability of harm then it could be classed as an A3.
This might necessitate some change in the design of the development,
if that is possible. Otherwise it may have to be a U. The LPA may
disagree however and demand its retention.
Mike Charkow
Arbor Vitae Arboriculture Ltd
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
and Stockholm Tree Pits https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and
Stockholm Tree Pits
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk
This e-mail is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual
to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of
the author and do not necessarily represent those of Tunbridge Wells Borough
Council. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error please notify Tunbridge Wells
Borough Council on telephone +44 (0)1892 XXXXXX or e-mail to
info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.gov.uk.
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and
Stockholm Tree Pits
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk
