A VIEW FROM THE URBAN FOREST

Trees and development - same old story? This opinion piece is This opinion piece is written by Aidan J rench from a personal perspective, formed by daily experience of the travails of the Irish urban tree and by what passes for o cial policy in the Republic of Ireland. So, it is written ‘from the trenches’ and therefore refl ects a striving to achieve optimal solutions for ‘tree thriving’ (beyond mere survival) in newly built environments. The author would welcome feedback on the issues raised.

Earlier this month the Tree Council of Ireland (TCI) invited us to celebrate ‘The Sound of Trees’, its theme for National Tree Week 2014, a nice homely concept. But as the trees make sounds and dare to speak, what do they say and are we listening to their pleas?

The TCI has often spoken about the need to foster a tree culture in Irish society. While much of the activity of tree advocates is focused, quite understandably, on educating the younger generation, it is arguably the older generation that most needs convincing. I can’t help but think that the pleas of the trees are fi rmly directed at this generation. After all it’s the generation that shapes the urban environment where most

Irish people live. It uses its power and infl uence to decide, often unwittingly and incoherently, the fate of urban amenity trees. And in my experience, fostering a tree culture in the development community (developers, builders, architects, planners, engineers etc) of that generation is an urgent, but rewarding, challenge.

For the past year I’ve become very engaged in the fate of urban trees in their struggles with the Irish planning system. It has been an education, or more accurately a re-education, which started in the early 80s when, as a UCD student, I was fi rst introduced to trees, planning and construction by Dublin County Council Parks Department. It was busy carving out a role in this area, building a working relationship with the Council’s planners.

More than 30 years later it seems the issues are as alive and problematic as ever. Has the fate of urban trees improved? And have trees been adequately addressed in government

policy, legislation or regulation, let alone in professional practice? In the limited space available here, I’ve attempted to provide some answers.

Having a role in stewarding the fate of urban trees is a daunting and honourable responsibility. Thankfully, things have moved on since the 1980s – there’s more awareness, more and better professional expertise and more tools available, and none more so than the revised British Standard, BS5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – recommendations. This has, in e ect, become the Bible for arborists, landscape architects and local authority parks professionals (where they exist – most authorities and no government department employs them). The BS provides a coherent methodological framework that, when used correctly, can ensure that the fate of trees is sustainably planned. I know, the ‘S word’! Sustainability: over-used and much abused. A definition will help: as it applies to sustaining urban trees on development sites, for me it means applying prudence, feasibility (e.g. realistic appraisal) and forward thinking (e.g. appropriate species selection) to facilitate quality decision making. The BS is at its best when applied as a design tool to inform the proposed site layout, rather than as a mere, box ticking exercise for a planning application, after ‘the architect’s horse had bolted’.

Of course one industry standard does not policy or guidance make. Unfortunately, like so many environmental issues in Ireland, trees in urban areas su er from a lack of real commitment at national and local levels to adequate financial and human resources. Contrast this with the UK as just one example of more progressive states. 25 years ago I joined the Ealing Borough Council (Parks Department), the ‘Queen of the London boroughs’ so renowned for its dedication to horticulture that the corporate letterhead was and still is an oak tree. In 1989 Ealing not only had three full time arboricultural o cers, but also a computerised tree management system to manage its tree population. 25 years later in Ireland and not one of the 34 city and county councils employ a tree o cer (though recently Dublin City Co advertised for one). And only two have computerised tree management software (Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown and Fingal). That’s how far behind we are in Ireland.

A couple of simple, progressive initiatives by Minister Phil Hogan could have significant benefits for urban trees. In the short term he could require all planning authorities to include in their planning application forms an obligation to State if trees are present on the site and if so, to submit a tree survey and impacts assessment with the application. This initiative would only require his signature on a statutory instrument which could be prepared in a matter of days. It would have several immediate benefits, chiefly by focusing architects’ and planners’ attention on trees early in the development process.

In the medium term, the Minister could introduce far reaching legal provisions by introducing a statutory obligation on all local authorities to prepare and implement tree strategies. Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown and Fingal councils have already done so. Tree strategies include essential management tools, for as classic management mantra says ‘you cannot manage what you don’t measure’. Along with a requirement for tree strategies, the larger local authorities should be required to employ full time tree o cers to implement the strategies. Of course, all this presupposes a desire by that older generation to manage urban trees as a resource, to see them as essential components of green infrastructure in the first place.

So have things really changed for the better? I’m not sure as there’s little readily available evidence upon which to base a considered opinion. That in itself is telling. I remain to be convinced that we’ve truly moved on, at least in any profound or systematic way. For while there’s much lofty, aspirational rhetoric by the State about trees (eg, development plans, guidance documents), too often there are yawning chasms between words and reality, which cannot be explained solely by public sector cutbacks. Because in the final analysis, it is by actions – born of genuine commitment - not words, that judgement on the fate of urban trees will rest.

So, before we engage in another, foolhardy rush into a building frenzy, isn’t it time to put in place some safeguards for the much beleagured Irish urban tree? Now, why do I feel the need for a conference coming on? Withdrawal symptoms? Well, it seems like a very long time since the industry convened an urban tree conference. It is long overdue. Time to bring builders, developers, arborists, architects, landscape architects, nurserymen, politicians and others together for a good listening to the ‘Sound of the Trees’. Anyone out there? ✽

AIDAN J. FFRENCH MILI Landscape Architect is Past President of the The Irish Landscape Institute (ILI) and a member of the The Urban Forum (20052009). Aidan is a parks professional working with Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown Parks & Landscape Services in Co Dublin. The views expressed are those of the author alone and not those of Dun LaoghaireRathdown Parks & Landscape Services, the ILI or Urban Forum. He can be contacted at aidan. rench@dlrcoco.ie

A landscape specification is a written document, which sets out an explicit set of requirements to be satisfied within a contract. As such, it forms an integral part of tendering processes and underpins the design and implementation of all landscape projects. It also facilitates oversight processes, allowing for rigorous inspection and sign o . In the often complex arena of large scale landscape construction projects, it can ensure that all parties are singing from the same hymn sheet.

Ireland does not have its own standard specification documents, and the vast majority of Irish landscape professionals use British Standards and forms of contract.

Over the last 15 years I have had many conversations with professionals from various sectors about the robustness of landscape specification in

Ireland. More often than not, the story has not been positive. From the designer side I’ve heard it said that contractors just don’t read specifications, they just get on with doing what they want to do, they put in a price based on the specification then simply change what they want to suit. From the contractor’s side,

I’ve been told that designers haven’t got a clue when it comes to specification, they just cut and paste, have little or no plant knowledge, specify unavailable and unsuitable species, and ignore local factors and conditions, a lot of the time we have to make changes or projects simply wouldn’t work. From the grower’s perspective I have similar complaints, nobody checks anything when it comes to plants, types, numbers, planting rates, designers don’t know plants and there’s no one checking to ensure contractors are fulfilling specifications. As for council schemes, the system is worse, there is little or no specialist landscape expertise, especially in rural councils, and often you have engineers deciding what plants will go in.

From the outside It would appear that one of the tools intended to ensure quality and transparency in the delivery of landscape schemes is somewhat flawed. To get a clearer picture of what’s really happening on the ground I asked a number of Ireland’s top professionals to share their thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses of Irish landscape specifications processes, and how they feel any problems can be addressed. BARRY LUPTON

As a general rule there are three main parties involved in any landscape development; the client, designer and contractor. Obviously there are exceptions to that in cases where the contractor is also the designer’s. Regardless of this, there are at least three stages of the contract; the client brief, the design and the build. A plan must be produced which strikes a happy medium between the client’s requirements and budget. The client will be aware of the quantity, name and sizes of the trees and shrubs, the areas and material type being used for hard landscape areas etc. The specification and Bill of Quantities are the key documents required to fulfil this element. The client signs o on this and the contractor moves in.

The contractor has a list of plants and a document he can refer to for technical details if required. Deliver the project on time and on budget, designer and client sign o the work and check sizes and quantities, and the client pays the contractor and designer. Sounds like a good system.

Where could you deviate? As an upstanding member of the Association of Landscape Contractors of Ireland, I always had respect for a specification and bill of quantities, it’s a level playing field and every job is fair game.

Alas, after an ALCI AGM, circa 2005, members from

across the country started talking and before long we realised none of the ALCI members present were getting any ‘public’ work, which we had been tendering for. We agreed that a cross section of the awarded contracts should be audited. The findings surpassed our worst expectations. For example, out of the five most commonly used plants, the two most expensive plants were missing, usually oak and holly. In some areas, less than 60% of the plant material was planted. Instead of 90-120 1+2 staked, they were 60-90 1+0 un-staked and the trees specified as 8-10cm were 2m transplants. There was grass growing around most plants where the specification stated that a certain circumference be maintained weed free for three years.

We informed the relevant authorities, some of which acted on our findings. In particular the Irish Landscape Institute were very thankful for our report and where possible at the time, some of their members made the contractors bring the jobs up to specification.

For a few short years after that our members were successful in being awarded contracts but I stress “a few”. Yet again there are one or two rogue contractors winning the majority of the larger public contracts. We have consulted the design teams and it turns out that their scope (in most cases) only extends to delivering the design. They are not employed to oversee the delivery and execution of their design. The relevant government department, whether Transport, Education or Health for example, views the submissions and awards the contracts on di erent merits. The department signs o on these drawings and a specification for every element of the project including landscaping and that is the basis on which the contract is awarded, and in turn is what must be delivered to the taxpayer.

The non-policing of this area is as unfair on all main contractors as it is on all landscape contractors and the taxpayer. If one contractor is pricing below specification, he has an unfair advantage over others and because they are all fighting so hard to get the work, they ignore the real costs of landscaping, and assume they will get away under specification.

The taxpayer is being cheated here. For example, take a project that costs €100k done to specification being delivered for €65k. That’s a loss of €35k, not a saving to the taxpayer, as the contract is being executed for a fixed sum. In reality it’s probably not a saving to the main contractor either as they would not have allowed €100k for landscaping in the first place in order to win the contract. This area must be policed.

This can be solved, fairly, e ciently and cost e ectively if contractors are advised that new policing controls are being implemented on all public works awarded after date of notice to the said parties.

How do you police this?

1. Employ suitably qualified individuals within the relevant departments who can assess, snag and sign off on landscape works. 2. Engage and extend the services of the landscape architects who designed the project to oversee and sign o . 3. Public Authority work only awarded to contractors such as ALCI or APL members. 4. Across the board, fair, strict, no nonsense approach to contractors by these individuals.

Can someone argue that this is not cost e ective?

Not when you see a loss to the taxpayer of €35k on one small job alone.

From the ALCI’s point of view we need rapid intervention in this area because our members are conscious about not only maintaining, but also improving the standards within our industry. Should the above directives not be acted upon, are the public denied the pleasure of enjoying what could have otherwise been so aesthetically pleasing to them?

Thomas Crummy is Chairman of the Association of Landscape Contractors of Ireland and owner of Thomas J Crummy Landscaping, one of Ireland’s leading landscape contracting companies and winner of the Bord Bia Landscape Business of the Year 2012/2013. www.thomasjcrummy.com ➤