UKTC Archive

RE: BS5837 - how to categorise a hazardous tree with a known bat roost in it?

Subject: RE: BS5837 - how to categorise a hazardous tree with a known bat roost in it?
From: Jeff Mashburn
Date: Oct 21 2020 16:12:02
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