Independent Arboricultural Report Review

Local planning authorities receive arboricultural reports of widely varying quality, and the tree officer determining an application may not have the capacity to audit every submission in detail.

We provide independent review of submitted arboricultural documents on behalf of the authority — establishing whether the survey is adequate, whether the categorisation is defensible, whether the root protection areas have been correctly calculated and plotted, whether the impact assessment identifies the impacts the drawings actually show, and whether the protection measures proposed would work on site.

The output is a written review the officer can rely on in determining the application and, where necessary, in drafting conditions or reasons for refusal. Where the submission is sound, the review confirms it. Where it is deficient, the review identifies precisely what is missing or incorrect, so any request for further information is specific rather than general.

Carl Riva's experience includes work for local authorities, housing associations and consultancies throughout the North West, and the review is written in the form an officer needs rather than a form that requires interpretation.

Residents, parish councils and community groups responding to a planning application are frequently faced with an arboricultural report they suspect is wrong but cannot say why. An objection that says the trees matter carries little weight. An objection that identifies a miscalculated root protection area, a mis-categorised veteran tree, or an impact the assessment has failed to address carries considerably more.

We review the submitted arboricultural documents on behalf of objectors and report on their compliance with BS5837, the accuracy of the survey and calculations, and the adequacy of the assessment. The findings are set out in a form that can be submitted to the authority as a technical representation.

The review is evidence-based and fair. Where the developer's report is sound, we say so — an objection built on a flawed technical challenge damages the objector's credibility on everything else. Where it is deficient, the deficiencies are identified precisely and the authority is given something it can act on.

Where an application has been refused or is being appealed and the arboricultural evidence is in dispute, the review extends to the preparation of evidence for the appeal.

This may involve reviewing the appellant's arboricultural case, the authority's reasons for refusal, and any third-party representations, and producing a statement setting out where the technical position actually lies. Where the evidence needs to be presented in a particular form for a hearing or inquiry, it is prepared accordingly.

We advise at the outset on the strength of the arboricultural position, so a party does not commit to an appeal on tree grounds that the evidence will not support.

What We Check

The review examines each element of the arboricultural submission against BS5837:2012, current planning policy, and the internal logic of the documents themselves.

Survey. Whether every relevant tree on and adjacent to the site has been surveyed, whether the data recorded is complete and plausible, whether stem diameters and heights are consistent with the species and age recorded, and whether trees on neighbouring land have been included where their root protection areas cross the boundary.

Categorisation. Whether each tree's category is defensible on the evidence recorded — in particular whether trees have been downgraded to justify removal, whether veteran or significant trees have been correctly identified, and whether the categorisation is consistent across similar trees on the same site.



Root protection area calculations. Whether RPAs have been calculated correctly from the recorded stem diameters, whether the cap has been applied where it should be, whether any modification of RPA shape is justified by the soil and rooting evidence, and whether the RPAs plotted on the drawings match the figures in the schedule.

Impact assessment. Whether the impacts identified correspond to what the proposed layout actually shows, whether indirect impacts — compaction, service routing, level changes, post-development pressure — have been addressed, whether removals are justified, and whether the mitigation proposed is proportionate to the loss.

Protection measures. Whether the tree protection plan and method statement would actually protect the retained trees through construction, whether fencing positions match the RPAs, whether special construction is specified where incursion is proposed, and whether the sequencing is workable on site.

Policy compliance. Whether the submission addresses the requirements of the national planning framework and the local plan policies that apply, and whether any ancient woodland, veteran tree or designated land considerations have been dealt with.

Internal consistency. Whether the survey schedule, the drawings, the impact assessment and the method statement agree with one another. Inconsistency between documents is one of the most common deficiencies and one of the easiest for an officer to find.

A written review setting out the findings against each element examined, with every finding graded:

Fundamental — a deficiency that undermines the submission and would justify a request for further information, a refusal, or a successful challenge.

Significant — a deficiency that materially affects the assessment or the protection of retained trees and should be corrected before the document is relied on.

Minor — an error or omission that does not affect the conclusion but should be corrected for accuracy.

Compliant — the element examined meets the standard and no action is required.



Where calculations are found to be incorrect, the review includes the recalculation — the correct RPA, the correct category, the correct figure — rather than simply noting the error.

The review concludes with a clear statement of whether the submission as a whole is fit for its purpose, and where it is not, what would need to change.

Independence and Conflict Checks

Urban Tree Management NW Ltd is a consultancy only. We carry out no tree works and have no connection to any tree surgery contractor, so there is no commercial interest in whether a review finds for retention or removal.

A conflict check is carried out on every review instruction before it is accepted. We will not review a report we produced, a scheme we have advised on, or a matter in which we have acted for another party. Where a conflict exists, we say so and decline.

The review is fair and evidence-based. It reports what complies as well as what does not, and it does not manufacture deficiencies to suit the instructing party. A review that only ever finds fault is worth nothing to an authority, an appeal inspector, or a developer trying to understand their real position.

Who Carries Out the Review

Reviews are carried out and reported by Carl Riva — Dip Arb (ABC) Level 6, RFS Certificate in Arboriculture, Professional Member of the Arboricultural Association, QTRA Registered User, LANTRA Professional Tree Inspection — with over sixteen years in arboricultural consultancy across Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Cheshire and Merseyside.

Carl produces BS5837 submissions for developers and architects as a core part of the practice, and has worked for local authorities, housing associations and consultancies throughout the North West. The review is written by someone who prepares these documents regularly and knows where they go wrong.

Urban Tree Management NW Ltd carries out no tree works, so there is no commercial interest in any finding made.