Ulterior motives, realised

Having done the Picus test on the beech tree I blogged about below, and submitted a report recommending a 20% crown reduction, cable bracing and rhizosphere improvement, I felt like I had done the best for that tree. I know the clients weren’t happy with it, thanks to the phone call from the developer (!) acting on their behalf, but felt that I had proved the tree could be retained and made safe.

However, things change. The wife living at the house called me up. First argument – that Ganoderma could be putting out spores attacking all the trees in their garden, including another big beech recently pruned. I explained how, as soon as a cut is made, hundreds of spores of all kinds of organisms will be landing on that wood; removing this beech and its Ganoderma will not stop infection. Her second line of attack rattled me more – an emotionally manipulative argument, discussing the tree falling on her and/or her family, killing her children. She had ‘found out’ that I would be liable for such actions, if the tree failed after I made my recommendations.

Although I knew this, and told her as much, I still went away that night worrying. What if I have made the wrong decision? What if it does fail, and I’m in court faced with negligence or manslaughter? However, I managed to settle myself down – other, experienced consultants proof-read my report and looked at the Picus results, and reached the same conclusion I had.

I naively hoped that would be it – if they did the work I recommended then their fears for safety would be alleviated.

Apparently not, since it was the husband’s turn last night. He gave me all kinds of bulls**t. They can’t insure for their house, given that cable bracing “is using giant bungees to hold a limb up when it fails”. No, it’s not; it reduces loading on a potential weak point, to prevent failure. Their neighbours are signing a petition to fell the tree because he’s been scaremongering about how dangerous it is. Did he tell them that my report had made recommendations that would reduce risk to an acceptable level? It’s got no long-term future, felling it would be euthanasia. Sorry, but no. Euthanasia is mercy killing; the tree is not suffering, the problem’s with him perceiving it to be in the way.

And, the closest he admitted to wanting it out the way for reasons other than safety – he’s spending £40,000 re-landscaping his garden, and doesn’t want that trashed “in a year’s time” by “a crane coming in” to fell the tree. Firstly – the tree could last far longer than a year. And secondly, well, there’s the reason for wanting rid – a tree with 150cm dbh has the maximum root protection area of 15m, that’s a big area on which our poor client can’t alter levels or put in garish garden features.

So, this morning, I sent a very considered and careful e-mail, putting in writing about what “an acceptable level of risk” means, about how cable bracing works, about the relative strength of Ganoderma (quoting an excerpt from Lonsdale’s Principles of Tree Hazard Assessment and Management, on how trees can sit with this fungus for many years without compromising safety). I reiterated the tree’s benefits – amenity and historic value, wildlife benefits, pollution attenuation, evaporative cooling, shading, and reducing waterlogging in his precious garden. I also explained the council see all these positives, as demonstrated by the protective order.

His response? They’re applying to fell the tree, “because it is dangerous”. They’ve hired an Arb Association approved consultant (what, like the company I work for?) to “review” my report and support felling the tree.

I don’t know whether I am more angry or upset. I had a tear in my eye. Firstly – I’ve failed trying to save a significant, majestic, wonderful being that can easily be made safe but kept. It’s down to the tree officer now, who (if these guys are as underhand as I suspect) may never see my report. I hope their new consultant recommends my work; but what if they care less about morals and integrity, and support the felling. I’ve tried, really bloody tried, to help save a being far older than any of us involved – and failed.

I honestly get upset about this kind of thing. Trees aren't inanimate objects in our landscape; they are living, respiring, growing organisms. The ecosystem services they provide far outweigh the minor ways in which we, as humans, should be altering our lifestyles to co-exist with them. This tree was at least 150 years old, possibly more. There is no way, morally, killing it can be justified when with some sympathetic treatment it could live for decades longer. It is truly heartbreaking to think that this tree could soon be felled - killed - because of selfish and greedy owners of the land on which it stands.

Secondly – I’m angry. Bitterly angry. Angry about the emotional manipulation to try and sway my decision. Angry about these ill-informed, greedy homeowners ignoring my advice because it’s not what they wanted – even though it was for the good of the tree, good of the environment, and even would have benefitted their property. Angry that they want to undermine my findings because I was too professional to side with them on this. Angry that they own a beautiful house made even better by a beautiful beech tree – I cannot overstate how significant it is. If you don’t like trees, don’t buy the house with them; go live with your sterile strip of lawn, and fancy landscaped features. I’d happily live under that tree, Ganoderma and all.

Another case of money being more important than anything else – and my crushing realisation that I can do nothing about it. Is this what consultancy is going to be like?

Professional mendacity

One small job that I've done in consultancy has weighed heavily on my mind. It was one where I had to completely detach the professional me - arboricultural consultant - from the personal me - environmentalist. Whilst I've expressed in this blog (and still continue to feel) discomfort with being involved in the development side of arboriculture, I have so far never been asked to directly alter my opinion to suit a client. In fact, I probably rate trees highly in terms of retention; I will give out retention category 'A' or 'B' quite readily to trees that I feel couldn't be easily replaced. If I ever did get a client asking me to downgrade a tree so that they could get it out of the way, I would point-blank refuse. I don't care if they pay my wages or not - that is against my morals.

However, with that in mind... I was put in a tricky situation by one client.

It was a development in a pretty, rural village. Other development had been proposed in the vicinity, which led to the usual response from the local authority of putting Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) on local, significant trees, including ones on the site my client wanted to develop. Now, according to them, they weren't informed of the new TPOs and found out through the grapevine. This seemed to have really riled the developer and so, as well as wanting the usual BS5837 survey, they also instructed me to object to one particular TPO before the deadline for objections ran out.

This tree was in the way of the proposed access to the new development; the developer obviously saw that having a protected tree there meant that they would have to spend more money redesigning the project and creating new access areas, instead of widening the existing one (requiring the removal of this tree). So, when they found out it had been protected, and their first plan was now scuppered, they wanted me to object to the TPO to make it easier for them to remove the tree and keep costs and effort down.

I went and had a look at the tree. A lovely mature copper beech, prominent and so with high amenity. Good vigour. It has to be admitted, however, that the rooting area wasn't great, being situated as it was on a driveway, with a lane to one side and a retaining wall directly next to it. I also found a slight weeping lesion with what could be the beginnings of Kretzschmaria deusta crusts forming.

And so, I called the client. I explained that the tree was visually significant and appeared healthy and so, frankly, if I was a tree officer I would have protected it. I explained that there were some possible defects, but only worthy of monitoring at this stage. I also told them that, in my opinion, a TPO would be upheld until any defects were confirmed.

The client, however, still had issues with the way that the council had supposedly not told them about the TPO. I suggested writing a formal complaint to the council regarding this. Apparently the client had done that already, but to make sure that the LPA were aware of their annoyance, they wanted to formally object too. As a last ditch attempt, I informed the client that they would be provoking the authority that would, eventually, decide whether or not to grant planning permission; that I would have to charge for time spent objecting; and that it was unlikely to be successful. They still asked me to go ahead.

So, I did it. I spent some time writing a carefully worded letter explaining that I was objecting to the TPO on behalf of the client, due to diminished longevity of the tree. And I hated it. Although I got colleagues to read through it to make sure that, reading between the lines, it was obvious that I was doing this on behalf of the client, I still felt uncomfortable with it. That letter is a public document, visible on the internet, with my name on the bottom saying that I object to a tree being protected on some pretty circumstantial grounds. That is my reputation with the local authority on the line, and in the long run I will have one or two dealings with this client, whereas I need a good and long-lasting working relationship with the tree officers in the local area.

All this has been brought back into my mind by an article on Horticulture Weekly, about an application to fell a 300 year old oak tree just because of subsidence to a garage. Luckily, it has been rejected, but right there in the article is the name of the arboricultural consultant writing the application and appeal. How would I feel if my name was printed in an article about an objection to protecting trees, just because it made a development easier?

I am still upset about jeopardising my professional reputation for the sake of some client wanting to make their development a little bit more straight forward, and because the client wanted to throw their toys out of the pram because of the apparent lack of notification of the TPO. Did I do the right thing writing that objection? Did I manage to detach myself enough from their motives, and simply be a vector for their objection as opposed to being actually 'on their side'? Am I right to do what the client asks, since they pay my wage? I don't know. I didn't downgrade a tree; I didn't make up problems to make the objection more reasonable, I just stated the facts. However, it's my name at the bottom of the letter saying that a tree of stature shouldn't be protected, all for the sake of a client's laziness at designing development, and annoyance with the council. I must admit to hoping that the objection is rejected.

Ulterior motives

One aspect that quickly becomes apparent in the private sector is that things aren't always what they seem... take a job I did last week. On the face of it, the kind of job I love doing.

A beautiful, mature beech tree in a garden. 25m tall and 150dbh, it was a lovely, open grown specimen, forking into two co-dominant stems at about 2m high. However, one stem (closest to the house in question) had a long-standing Ganoderma bracket on it - I counted at least 8 years of growth on it.

We had been asked, on behalf of the homeowners, to do decay detection tests to see how bad the fungal activity is. A bit of research revealed that the tree is protected and there had been an application to remove it, refused by the tree officer, who wanted to see how bad the decay was before agreeing to such action. Hence my involvement.

The actual survey itself was good fun; I always get a kick out of doing Picus tests and seeing what the interior of the tree looks like. Decay in the stem was nearly at the 70% t/r ratio, where most trees show a significantly increased risk of failure. A test below the bracket showed less extensive decay, but worryingly, getting closer to the included bark at the stem union. So the recommendations - a crown reduction to take the weight off the decayed stem, coupled with cable bracing to reinforce the already vulnerable stem union given that decay seemed to be entering that area. A Picus at the base revealed some minor decay in the centre, possibly having spread down; so, as an added recommendation, soil decompaction and mulching could give the tree more of a fighting chance at compartmentalising the decay.

However, when we first arrived, the husband at the property made no bones about wanting its removal, claiming his family were scared of the tree failing. He made out that his wife really wanted the tree gone - so having completed the tests, and telling the wife that I thought the tree could be made safe and kept, her relief seemed a bit at odds with her husband's account of how she felt. Hmmm.

So I wrote up the report and made recommendations, and was duly contacted by our instructing client (on behalf of the homeowners) who, as it turned out, worked for... a development agency. I gladly told her that yes, the tree needed work, but it could be kept. The desired outcome, or so I thought. The client had other ideas, informing me that, really, they want the tree felled. "It's dangerous." Well, erm, not if you carry out the work I've recommended... "It's never going to get better though, is it?" Well, would that be a suitable excuse for an ill human? No, it's never going to 'heal' - it's a mature Beech at least 150 years old, by my reckoning - but given the right treatment it could go on longer, whilst being made safe to decline on its terms.

Luckily, I played the professional advice card, suppressing my "save the trees" tendencies and instead arguing that, if I recommended a fell, the tree officer would take a look at the decay detection results and reach the conclusion that I reached - yes, work needs done, but the tree can be retained. So it was a waste of their money asking me to recommend a fell, because the tree officer would throw any report like that out of the window.

However, it left me quite angry. A development company... Who are they kidding? They wanted rid of the tree so that the property owners could develop there. They were looking for any reason why that tree could be felled. Quite a relief that the council were on the ball and had TPO'd it. It's a lack of respect; we don't "own" trees, to remove at our whim when we feel money can be made. A tree that old will have seen the days when it was horse and cart passing by the road, not cars driving by. It will have seen countless inhabitants of that property, and could see more if given sympathetic treatment. Yes, it is in the autumn of its years - but for a tree that old, the autumn could last rather a long time. 

So show some respect for living beings of that stature. Realise how lucky you are to have such a magnificent tree in your garden. Think about the air pollution attenuation, the shading, evaporative cooling, water table regulation and carbon storage that tree is providing. And, lastly, put your cards on the table - don't pretend that the tree needs felling because it is dangerous, when actually it's in the way of your development and you don't see how important keeping trees like that are. It was astonishing that they even tried to be so underhand, and I'm just glad that the local authority were so aware and decisive; hopefully, this particular beech will see many more years to come.