As a tree care specialist, I am realising that it is one thing to know what questions to ask when commissioning work. Knowing how to interpret the answer is another challenge. One of the complications is that arboriculture is unregulated: anyone can offer professional arboricultural services, regardless of their competency. It is when I begin to ask the questions that I can establish the credentials of the individual.
Earlier this year, I was asked to assess the credentials of an individual who was managing trees for a resident association. A commitment to CPD and membership of a relevant professional association were cited by the individual who considered themselves competent. When I saw evidence of work and delved more deeply, I drew different conclusions.
There can be a challenge when those charged with managing trees are of the opinion that they have sufficient expertise in the arena, and the evidence suggests otherwise. The presence of unsafe trees and poor pruning works indicate the absence of professional supervision. I am presently advising several organisations with multiple site on how to develop and implement sustainable and defendable tree policies.
Writing tree reports to BS5837:2012 is a key element of my work, and sometimes I am asked to comment on the work of others, especially when an application encounters complications. There have been several occasions in the past year when I have reviewed the report written by someone else. This has usually occurred when an application is refused and the applicant is exploring an appeal. For one site, the report sought to reassure that a Beech tree could be retained within a development. I agreed with this. However, the author did not then explain this or provide a Method Statement.
At the other extreme, a consultant with considerable expertise and credentials went in to great detail of how trees could be retained on a development site without explaining where they were or why they merited this attention. As I read the report, I was left with an incomplete picture. The sensitive site, within a Conservation Area, merited more detail and greater attention, the absence of which did not reassure the case officer.
A BS5837:2012 tree report should contain the ‘5 Ws’: What is there? What is worth keeping? What can realistically be retained? What will be done to protect the trees being retained? What mitigation is proposed for the trees being removed?