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.