Tree Survey, Arb Impact Appraisal and Method Statement

[daltontrees]

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.

 

I don't misunderstand you, Tom, I'm just trying to address generalisations for the benefit of the OP. The pressure to bend the truth is ALWAYS there, and there's some right Shereens out there who don't resist it and are even all too fast to suggest to a client how it can be bent. Not you obviously...

 

There's another analogy witht he legal profession that might be applicable here, and that is the role of the expert witness in court proceedings. Although appointed by one of the parties the expert becomes answerable to the court and any partisan leanings will be straightened up sharpish by the judge. And I think I have mentioned before on Arbtalk that I make my tricky decisions under a momentary imaginary cross-examination.

 

I tell you what I really do agree with you on. Anyone using their role as a 5837 categoriser to protect trees contrary to the plain facts is all wrong. Straight down the middle is where to aim. Let the system take it from there (even if it then gets lost in the long long grass).

[Gary Prentice]

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.

 

I find the tree hugger statement interesting, even strange on a forum run by and for arboriculturists.

 

If the client requests a survey with the objective of removing as many trees as possible, isn't the proposal to categorize as many trees as possible to achieve that objective?

 

A lawyer or barrister has one objective - to free his client, but I think the Judge and the Law Society would object if he misinformed i.e lied to the court to achieve that.

 

The purpose of the survey is, in my view, an informative tool, initially for the design team to set the site layout around trees that should be retained (Cat A and B - where possible). Later in the process, the Planning Department view it to see how the project as a whole fits in with Government and local policies and strategies.

 

I have no disillusions about being there to 'protect trees', the surveyor reports on what is there - no more, but without fear or favour. The time to work in the clients interests is when solutions are needed, to offer and provide advice to the design team to achieve whatever problem they need to overcome, be it access into the site through RPAs or a method statement to the piling contractor to prevent compaction.

 

I don't understand your attitude to TO's being on the other side, aren't we all arboriculturists - specialists or experts in trees in the urban environment, with at least a certain amount of common goals.

 

Anyway, the point of my rather tongue-in-cheek post was simply, IME, the process doesn't work, either in the planning stage or during the construction phase. Lack of fiscal resources means that during the construction phase nothing is policed, there is no use in providing a AMS, having it conditioned when no Shareen (I had to look that up) actually goes on site to see what's going on. The whole process, in concept, should work. Anyone who thinks it does needs to get out and actually go round these sites.

[Dorset Treeman]

I didn't realise my thread would stir up such a hornets nest

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

I didn't realise my thread would stir up such a hornets nest

 

 

Put 6 people in a room, you'll get 8 opinions!

 

Brilliant!

[daltontrees]

Shareen (I had to look that up)

 

Shereen Nanjiani, minor celebriy scottish newsreader and more famously the origin of scottish rhyming slang for a person of questionable judgement? Also part of female anatomy, as in "She gied her a boot in the Shereen, an' legged it".

[daltontrees]

I didn't realise my thread would stir up such a hornets nest

 

I'm sure it'll make us all better people. Me, I wasn't doing anything else more interesting today...

[Chris at eden]

Great thread. I think the biggest problem is that planning departments don't really enforce conditions. I write a monitoring schedule into every AMS that I do but I never get instructed to do them one it all kicks off. I've never seen it raised by the LPA either. Its a shame. 5837 would actually work if people followed it.

 

Jules, good point about the expert witness and I think you can apply that to reports also. They all have the potential to be to end up in court. The consultants primary responsibility is to the system. I read an article a while ago where the expert witness was thrown out of the court as the judge deemed him not to be an expert! How embarrassing!

[daltontrees]

I suppose that brings me neatly back to my earlier reference to teh definition in the Standard

"3.3 arboriculturist -person who has, through relevant education, training and experience, gained expertise in the field of trees in relation to construction."

 

Expert is a strong word, but if it equates to 'expertise' I think that's a reasonable test of whether someone should be undertaking 5837 surveys unassisted. The word 'and' I think is important, if it meant to say 'or' or 'and/or' it would have done so.