Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Julian Forbes-Laird
BA(Hons), MICFor, MEWI, M.Arbor.A, Dip.Arb.(RFS) Chartered Arboriculturist Director & Principal Consultant, Forbes-Laird Arboricultural Consultancy Ltd
BS5837:2005 keypoints
Arboriculturist is defined to exclude pseudo-arbs! Tree surveys must now only be undertaken by arbs Tree grading system (Table 1) designed to reduce disagreement, & to offer realistic tree retention by weeding out poor quality trees TPZ1 (Root Protection Area, RPA) is defined in m TPZ1 is rarely a circle: its final shape must be determined by an arboriculturist Tree protection fencing has improved from invisible to intimidating! Much more detail in relation to special engineering measures for inserting development into the RPA
R for removal
Trees for removal are considered first This mirrors what surveyors actually do Trees that cannot be retained are factored out, allowing more focus on the remainder Dead trees are included in the R category because they are not be a material consideration in the planning process Notes in the text explain that R category trees may be retained if site layout considerations allow, & that retention of dead trees may be desirable, safety considerations permitting
What is a group?
Notes in the text explain that the term group is intended to identify: 1. Aerodynamic cohesion of unified or closely adjacent crowns (companion shelter) 2. Visual unity (avenues, screens, etc) 3. Cultural importance (parkland, wood pasture, etc) Where trees occur as groups, they should be assessed as such: very often they stand or fall together Individual assessment of trees within groups may still be desirable (e.g. identifying line of least resistance for inserting a crossover)
In other words, smaller trees get less, but larger ones get more 2007 development land value in the SE of England: the 707m/sq RPA of a 1250mm dia. tree = 160K
Strategy
Inherent within BS5837:2005 is a five-stage process This process is intimately woven throughout the development cycle This process is not new to 2005 It is what Engaged Consultants have been doing for some time And it is what competent TOs require
Arboricultural Stage 1
Tree survey & preliminary constraints advice Including Tree Survey & Constraints Plans Tree survey data & TSP become appendices to AIA (AS3) TCP is internal advice to design team & not for LPA consumption TCP should include preliminary retention/removal advice In simple terms, this is based on:
R = remove A = retain B = consider C = ignore
Arboricultural Stage 2
Design Review Evaluation of arboricultural implications of emerging site layout Design tested against tree protection requirements in relation to four zones: Zone 1 RPA (barriers, ground protection & special engineering) Zone 2 Crown protection zone (working space & AFP) Zone 3 Avoiding PDTR (setback distances & shading analysis) Zone 4 Protection/remediation of areas for structure planting Arboriculturist works within design team to develop best fit scheme This is based on an ongoing dialogue between the disciplines involved The objective is to deliver site viability based on defensible and practical levels of tree retention Cramming 100 trees / 100 into a site and damaging them all a little is less good than keeping 20 trees with adequate separation distances and proper protection
Zone 4: area for new planting Zone 1: root protection Zone 2: crown protection
Arboricultural Stage 3
Preparation of supporting documentation Arboricultural Implications (Impact) Assessment, demonstrates that the trees have been properly considered by An analysis of the tree retention/removal balance, plus Information on how retention trees will be protected Typical Appendices: 1. Tree Survey data 2. Tree Survey Plan 3. Tree Retention/Removal Plan 4. Tree Protection Plan 5. Indicative Arboricultural Method Statement(s), and sometimes 6. Shading analysis
Arboricultural Stage 4
Securing discharge of planning conditions Arboriculturist works with design team to resolve outstanding details Tree friendly solutions & ongoing design review Typically relating to site infrastructure & build process, e.g. drainage, services, ext. lighting, construction management Often includes preparation of detailed TPP & AMS Frequently, AS4 overlaps with AS5
AS4 TPP/AMS
Devilish example
Under clause 11.6 5837 gives advice on perched foundations for use within the RPA In practice, this solution can elevate the structure by ca. 350mm This will usually have a knock-on effect on ridge height, which is frequently frozen at the application stage Thus leaving foundation detail to conditions expecting a perched solution to be adopted is doomed to failure The detail of any foundations within the RPA must be enshrined in the application itself
Arboricultural Stage 5
Implementation LPAs are increasingly using a planning condition requiring arboricultural site monitoring This can be offered to LPAs/Inspectors as a security blanket Arb site monitoring includes: 1. Checking correct alignment & construction of tree protection fencing & ground protection (if applicable) 2. Ensuring compliance with AMS 3. Overseeing arboricultural operations such as AFP 4. Responding to emerging queries from site agent etc And dont forget: once the thing is built, postdevelopment tree inspection & aftercare for new planting may be needed
The scenario
World-class plant research facility including new home for the Darwin Herbarium To be inserted into historic setting including pristine arboretum & listed building Big project: e.g. muck-away for basement required five 8-wheelers per hour, six hours per day, five days per week, for four months
Ground protection 1
Ground protection 2
Background
JFL instructed by third party objectors to attack Appellants proposal in relation to a beech tree Objectors could not afford PoE route, so JFL retained as an advocate Appellants arboricultural expert was an AARC, instructed after the scheme was refused consent Tree agreed as A1 by all parties RPA calculation: 725 x 12 x 8.7 x = 238m Existing radial crown spread 9m towards site
Proposal
Development proposed at 4m SD to stem centre Lateral crown reduction proposed to 3.5m from stem Proposed crown to building SD 500mm Shape of RPA 8m x 30m 50% of RPA shown under adjacent footway/road 70% of RPA on land under third party control (highway authority/neighbour) No information provided on foundation design, proposed finished levels & utility corridors: all would be left to conditions
Before
During
After
Weaknesses in BS5837:2005
No definition of open grown tree No aspect ratio to RPA No rider on off-site RPA limits No limits to access facilitation pruning or amenity/quality correlation No prohibition against cyclical pruning to facilitate minimal separation distance No recommendation that complex design details are unsuitable for reservation JFL is a technical editor for BS5837(2010)