Tree Survey, Arb Impact Appraisal and Method Statement

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Ah, but these reports aren't just written for the benefit of tree officers are they?!

 

I do include some background info about the BS and the principles that guide the report, because I want my client to have a good understanding of the situation as well as the TO. Often clients are bewildered by the need for all this tree advice so I like to explain it to them in the report they've had to commission and pay for.

 

I do agree with you though Chris, it's good to cut out as much waffle as possible. I keep thinking about writing some better informative appendices so that the main report can be more concise.

 

Would it also be wise to consider the wider public when compiling? TO's might find the "back ground detail" repetitive, but they can always skim over that. Perhaps some level of generic explanation might preempt or avoid a disgruntled letter of objection from a concerned or obstructive neighbour? Would that be a valid consideration?

[Paul Barton]

Good points Paul and Kevin - site staff and the public are also readers of these reports. This is what makes BS reports tricky to write well I think - the numerous readers with differing interests and levels of knowledge.

 

I try and separate each element if possible.

- Initially a tree constraints report for the client (not to be submitted with the planning app).

- Then an impacts assessment for the planners so they can weight up the merits of the application.

- And lastly the method statement, primarily to be read and understood by the building company and other site workers.

 

Back to the OP. I could come and to the survey with you if you like. I wouldn't be able to do it til July though if that's ok.

[daltontrees]

Would it also be wise to consider the wider public when compiling? TO's might find the "back ground detail" repetitive, but they can always skim over that. Perhaps some level of generic explanation might preempt or avoid a disgruntled letter of objection from a concerned or obstructive neighbour? Would that be a valid consideration?

 

Don't these things get publicised a little too late for the public to use them for what you are contemplating? I don't know how it works down south but up here the public will see a registered applicatin but won't see detailed reports until it's too late. Also I have seen Councls asking for 5837 reports as a condition of consent (which is a rubbish and pointless way to use 5837) at which point the public has no further direct influence.

[Dorset Treeman]

Thanks for all the helpful advice and for the two offers of help. I will now wait until I have had the site visit on Friday and will post some more information then.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Don't these things get publicised a little too late for the public to use them for what you are contemplating? I don't know how it works down south but up here the public will see a registered applicatin but won't see detailed reports until it's too late. Also I have seen Councls asking for 5837 reports as a condition of consent (which is a rubbish and pointless way to use 5837) at which point the public has no further direct influence.

 

Won't it be normal for the Tree survey and AIA to be compiled prior to the plans being drawn up (I know, reality check myself there!), then for them to be submitted with the planning application (and all the other supporting documents) which are available to view via the portal for public and LA consideration?

[Chris at eden]

Won't it be normal for the Tree survey and AIA to be compiled prior to the plans being drawn up (I know, reality check myself there!), then for them to be submitted with the planning application (and all the other supporting documents) which are available to view via the portal for public and LA consideration?

 

You cant do an impact assessment before the layout. The AIA is the impact of the trees on development and vice versa, you need to know what is being build for that. The tree survey yes though, should be independent of layout. The sequence is generally or should be:

 

1. Tree survey and constraints assessment. Pre-app, guidance for design team.

2. AIA and draft TPP. To go in with planning app.

3. AMS and final TPP. To be conditioned usually.

 

In my opinion the AIA is mainly prepared for the TO and LPA as they will be making the decision. Of course it should be written so the laymen can understand it as should all reports, so supported by descriptive text where required. The AMS is not just for contractors, it gives the LPA something they can condition which makes enforcement possible.

 

I'm not saying it shouldn't have an intro to explain what it is, clearly it should but it should be much more than that. I saw one yesterday from a well respected consultant that was about 20 pages. The only thing that was specific was a survey schedule and an impact assessment which was two paragraphs. The rest of it you could apply to any site in the country. I don't think that is good enough.

[Gary Prentice]

The sequence is generally or should be:

 

1. Tree survey and constraints assessment. Pre-app, guidance for design team.

2. AIA and draft TPP. To go in with planning app.

3. AMS and final TPP. To be conditioned usually.

 

.

 

Unfortunately, in my experience the sequence is:

 

1) Provide site layout - ignoring the presence of trees.

2) Planning demand a tree survey, Arboriculturist is told that the client wants to remove as many trees as possible.

3) Arb refuses job under those terms, remit changes, survey is done.

4) Planning accept the initial layout - regardless of tree categories (condition replanting) because boxes have to be ticked and targets met for the boroughs new housing provision strategy.

5) AMS and TPP provided.

6) Construction phase commencemences

7) Soil strip is undertaken -everywhere.

8) Fencing is erected to protect the retained trees - often leant against the trunks for support.

9) Planning require justification statement for tree removals, replacing mature trees with Amelanchia found to be acceptable because two for one policy has been stated.

10) Developer sells houses.

11) New owners remove the sorry remnants of remaining trees.

12) five years on, anything left dies anyway.

 

 

Am I jaded with the entire system? Too right I am,

[Tom D]

Unfortunately, in my experience the sequence is:

 

1) Provide site layout - ignoring the presence of trees.

2) Planning demand a tree survey, Arboriculturist is told that the client wants to remove as many trees as possible.

3) Arb refuses job under those terms, remit changes, survey is done.

4) Planning accept the initial layout - regardless of tree categories (condition replanting) because boxes have to be ticked and targets met for the boroughs new housing provision strategy.

5) AMS and TPP provided.

6) Construction phase commencemences

7) Soil strip is undertaken -everywhere.

8) Fencing is erected to protect the retained trees - often leant against the trunks for support.

9) Planning require justification statement for tree removals, replacing mature trees with Amelanchia found to be acceptable because two for one policy has been stated.

10) Developer sells houses.

11) New owners remove the sorry remnants of remaining trees.

12) five years on, anything left dies anyway.

 

 

Am I jaded with the entire system? Too right I am,

 

I think you are forgetting who you're working for. The T.O. is there to act in the interest of the trees, environment etc. You're there to act for the applicant, just like a planning consultant or architect. When I do 5837 surveys I do so with the best interests of the applicant in mind, I think it would be a breach of contract if I didn't. I'm not suggesting you do anything improper, merely write your report with the development in mind. If you think you're there to protect the trees you're wrong, thats not your job. You're there to get the client to see the development with the tees in mind, and make helpful suggestions, without forgetting who you are working for, remember the T.O. can always disagree with your report and that is fine, its not a failure. I did one last week, they wanted a lot of trees removed, I found that 6 of them needed removing anyway and the remainder were Cat C. There were two nice trees that I suggested they keep in order to screen the development and after liaising with the Architect we moved the buildings a couple of meters to accommodate the RPA's. So hopefully everyone's happy. I didn't even have to use my velcro Ganoderma, or the spray on Kretchmaria!

 

If you go in all tree hugger you're not acting for your client, if you found yourself up in front of a magistrate you wouldn't want your lawyer to be acting in the interests of the state would you. Lawyers swear an oath to act in the best interests of their client however nasty he is.... If you can't stomach that then you shouldn't be doing these surveys, change sides and become a TO.

[daltontrees]

I think you are forgetting who you're working for. The T.O. is there to act in the interest of the trees, environment etc. You're there to act for the applicant, just like a planning consultant or architect. When I do 5837 surveys I do so with the best interests of the applicant in mind, I think it would be a breach of contract if I didn't. I'm not suggesting you do anything improper, merely write your report with the development in mind. If you think you're there to protect the trees you're wrong, thats not your job. You're there to get the client to see the development with the tees in mind, and make helpful suggestions, without forgetting who you are working for, remember the T.O. can always disagree with your report and that is fine, its not a failure. I did one last week, they wanted a lot of trees removed, I found that 6 of them needed removing anyway and the remainder were Cat C. There were two nice trees that I suggested they keep in order to screen the development and after liaising with the Architect we moved the buildings a couple of meters to accommodate the RPA's. So hopefully everyone's happy. I didn't even have to use my velcro Ganoderma, or the spray on Kretchmaria!

 

If you go in all tree hugger you're not acting for your client, if you found yourself up in front of a magistrate you wouldn't want your lawyer to be acting in the interests of the state would you. Lawyers swear an oath to act in the best interests of their client however nasty he is.... If you can't stomach that then you shouldn't be doing these surveys, change sides and become a TO.

 

That's unnecessarily harsh, Tom, I am sure Gary knows the score and was just having a bit of a joke at the expense of a system that doesn't really work most of the time.

 

If one is commissioned to do a 5837 survey, it should not be done in the client's best interests, it should be done objectively, ignoring the development proposals. Doing it objectively is indirectly the best way to serve your cleint because if the TO disagrees with a report because its conclusions are suspect, the cleint is back at square one. Every professional has the choice to develop and maintain a solid reputation for objective reporting, clients will come looking to use you if you have that because it gets them results. A professional can make his own decision about whether to prostitute himself and his reputation for a fee by bending or breaking the truth about trees. And when he does, every TO in the country, via the grapevine, comes to treat his reports with suspicion and might even pre-judge a planning application because of the choice of 'tart' arb consultant. Having done 20 years on and off in local government and industry, I could write a list, so could most DCOs.

 

Back to the original posting here, I think the arb consultant starting on 5837 surveys needs to set out the stall very carefully early on, because changing it later is very hard. Not playing it dead straight is the easy way, but then it just gets harder and harder and harder. As Shakspeare said 'Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive".

[Tom D]

You misunderstand me. I'm not bending the truth. I always give a fair appraisal of the situation, and I take your point about reputation. I have probably only done 20 or so planning surveys, none of them have ever been refused or argued with, so I don't think I'm creating a rod for my own back.

 

I still think my point is a valid one, and the comparison with the legal profession. As a professional you have to be able to keep your clients interest at heart and if you think that they are wrong it's your job to explain why and come up with alternatives. I see my job being to help them achieve their goals, so I have told people in the past if they are wasting their time, because the planners simply won't wear what they are asking.

 

But I'm also there to fight their corner in the event of a dispute.