Aspects of BS5837:2005

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

Part 1: Tree grading

Importance of the tree grading process

At the heart of the 5837 process is the differentiation as to quality of a sites existing tree stock. From this one simple (?) exercise all else naturally follows. For this reason, if the tree grading is misapplied the end result can only be bad planning Greys Law: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice

The tree grading system (Table 1)

Arboriculturists only need apply A development site TS undertaken by a non-arb has not been carried out in accordance with the provisions of BS5837 LPAs can & should refuse to accept non-arb surveys All trees should be assessed objectively, ignoring any extant layout information Condition/longevity hurdle for each grade Removal grade trees should be identified first Retention trees are considered via a logical cascade through A-C The three primary values of retention trees are separated into subcategories Sub-categories are required to be listed in data schedule Overall improvement to transparency of decision-making process

Why cascade chart?

The purpose of the title cascade chart is to focus attention on how each tree or group should be assessed: Assuming that the tree/group does not get assigned to the R-category, the surveyor should start with the presumption that each tree/group is graded A, then test its observed attributes against the strict criteria for this category If the tree fails the A-grade tests, then it should be assessed against the criteria for B If it fails again, then it is a C

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

Applying the R grade

Less than 10 years remaining contribution Should be removed in relation to existing context (i.e. regardless of development) Trees that are in a state of imminent collapse & those exposed by loss of same Dead or severely declining trees Trees of very low quality of disbenefit to other nearby trees of better quality

A, B, C: Trees to be considered for retention

Three longevity bands as qualifying hurdles: > 40 for A grade > 20 for B grade > 10 for C grade (< 10 = R) Determining the likely remaining longevity (= retention span) of a tree may not always be easy, but it can & must be done for the assessment to have integrity e.g. consider the implications of advising a client to severely constrain a site layout so that a mature silver birch can be retained, when it only has 10 more years before decline sets in

Structure of the subcategories

These are designed to reflect the three principal though differing ways in which a tree may have value: Because in and of itself it is a tree Because it makes a contribution to the landscape Because it has qualities that transcend a purely arboricultural understanding Trees can qualify in more than one SC, it is not intended that they accrue value by doing so Veteran trees should be graded A3 (though may also fall into A1 and/or A2)

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)

Part 2: The RPA

Identifying the RPA (Table 2)

Root protection requirements for each tree are based on a radius derived from a multiplier of 12 x stem dia. @ 1.5m AGL for single stemmed trees, or 10 x stem dia above basal flare for multi-stemmed/low forking trees The radial measure is converted by the formula (r) = A This gives an area in m, notionally centred on the tree stem

Identifying the RPA contd

However, the actual shape of the RPA is rarely a circle: it should be determined & plotted on the Tree Protection Plan by an arboriculturist, taking account of: Disturbance tolerance of tree (species, age class, condition, presence of other trees) Known factors predisposing tree towards asymmetrical rooting Soil type & structure, topography & drainage A 20% offset is available but only for individual opengrown trees

Plotting the RPA worked examples

Tree protection distances compared

1991 (size ranges) Dia. mmTPZ rad. m < 350 4.5 350-750 >750 Max (OM) 6.0 8.0 12.0 2005 (examples) Dia. mmRPA rad. m 300 3.6 350 4.2 500 6.0 750 9.0 900 10.8 1250 15.0

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

Part 3: Standard practice: applying 5837

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

The Four-zone protection system (after Nicholson)

Zone 3: Influence from shading & dominance

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

Tree friendly foundation detail

Example shading analysis using Arborshadow

Extract from 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

AMS: The devil in the detail

Even with full applications, the development process in the UK commonly relies on many details of site infrastructure being resolved by conditions BUT the principle of material consideration becomes undermined if trees agreed for retention are then removed to facilitate condition discharge So: where the leave it to condition process has potentially adverse consequences for tree retention, TOs & consultants should resist it AMS prepared under AS3 (pre-condition) are only as good as the detail of the application which they support As a rule, any construction proposed within the RPA should be fully detailed up at application stage: this is the only way to ensure successful tree protection

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

Development is a specialist subject

For an arb to contribute successfully to the design and build process, he or she requires an intimate knowledge of the development process and how it can impact on trees E.g. concrete: C35 concrete (typically used for piles) has a pH of ca. >12.5 when wet (enough to chemically burn off skin), with adjacent soil alkalinity levels being likely to rise to over 10 pH due to leachate released during the curing period: typically 25-50% of the 150l per ton of C35s water load is lost into the ground Trees ability to extract nutrients from the soil ceases at around pH8.4; higher pH factors are simply toxic 10 no. 300mm x 6m piles comprises = 8.4T of C35, giving run-off of ca. 440L To avoid the arbortoxic effects of curing leachate, piles in (and arguably adjacent to) the RPA should either be of the stainless steel screw type or, if concrete, should be sleeved for the first 2500mm below ground

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

Remember: development sites are hostile territory

Part 4: Case Study - UCBG

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

Proposed tree retention

The decision-making process included an assessment of the botanical importance of trees within development zone Rare young trees of good form were relocated Difficult but balanced decisions were taken to derive the final tree retention / removal balance FLAC promoted the scheme through the planning process against fierce opposition from the LPA tree officer

Heras fencing protecting yew hedge

Detail of corner bracing

Double height fencing protecting Carpinus carolinensis

Ground protection 1

Ground protection 2

Example access facilitation pruning

Part 5: Battle-testing BS 5837:2005 Notes from a recent Public Local Inquiry

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)