When we are considering planning applications, and indeed tree condition assessments, we often focus on the boundaries applied to each situation, be it the legal boundary applied to a plot of land or the specific curtilage or a development proposal. However, as an arborist, I do not stop there when undertaking my assessments. There is a phrase within arboriculture called ‘influencing distance’. This recognises that trees are no respecter of boundaries. They can shed branches, or even fall, where gravity takes them, albeit sometimes with the helping hand of a prevailing wind.
For my assessments, I consider the impact of trees beyond the boundary, regardless of who owns them. I look at the condition of the trees, in as far as I can. I also consider how these trees could impact the proposed development. There are those who prefer to place the curtilage of their development on the inside of neighbouring trees, thereby placing them outside the development. The thinking is that the trees are then no longer a material consideration.
This may seem a very sensible approach. However, if there is an issue with these trees, excluding them from consideration does not remove the problem. Over the past year, I have been asked to assess a handful of development sites where trees have been identified for concern subsequent to the granting of planning permission. In each case, either there was no arboricultural assessment or it was undertaken by someone with limited arboricultural perspective. It is interesting how professionals who pursue arboriculture as a second specialism can lack a real feel for trees, and can seek to retain specimens which are not really suitable for retention.
In 2016, I visited a site where a group of Poplars had been retained as they provided valuable screening for the development. That the surveyor had mis-identified the species was a minor point. The presence of dead wood within the crowns of many of the trees was overlooked, with branches of one tree growing in to the development area. I pondered the thought process that the surveyor had followed, as the site manager, not an arborist, had identified safety concerns, with branches being shed with each passing storm. He was concerned for the safety of the construction workers! The trees had been retained and a season of growth for replacement specimens had been missed.
On another site, excavation work to install drainage infrastructure off-site, which wasn’t part of the original proposals, left adjoining trees part-uprooted and leaning over the development area. I would have been reluctant to work in that area! A minor change to layout had resulted in the roof of one house being built in to the crown of a tree which had been retained but shown smaller than it really was.
With careful planning, all of these problems could have been avoided. It is called ‘thinking outside the box’, which is a key part of my approach!