Project Case Studies

Peabody Trust Tree Strategy

Partners:

  • Peabody Trust
  • ACS Consulting
  • Also Forestry Commission, Trees for Cities and others

for information contact: Mathew Frith, Landscape Regeneration Manager. Email: Mathew.Frith@peabody.org.uk, Tel: 020 7021 4422

Summary

 The development of a tree strategy to improve the understanding and management of the Trust's tree stock, in order to maximise benefits and minimise risks.

Description

 Up until 2002-03 Peabody Trust held patchy information on its trees and undertook a largely reactive tree management regime based on requests by estate staff and residents. There was no centralised information on its tree stock, with no data on the numbers of trees, their location, type and condition the Trust was responsible for. Mindful of the risks of claims being made against the Trust for damage caused by trees (to both people and buildings), and the costs borne by undertaking reactive management, the Trust prepared a tree strategy in 2003-4. There was also an opportunity to help raise awareness on the benefits of trees and help redress the internal opinion that they are costly liabilities.

The Strategy's priorities were:
  • to gather data on its tree stock through detailed survey
  • to develop an in-house database to manage and analyse tree information
  • to train some of its staff on arboricultural issues
  • to move towards a pro-active management regime
  • to develop relationships with expert external partners in order to secure additional resources
  • to disseminate information to staff and residents

Process

 1. Survey

The work started with the commissioning of the Trust wide tree-survey. This was carried out by ACS Consulting (www.treebiz.co.uk) in three initial stages, starting in 2003-04 on estates where all trees are easily accessible to survey.

The surveys have involved qualified tree surveyors visiting each tree and obtaining data of its type, size, condition, history of management, planning constraints, together with recommendations for management, all recorded on an Access database. All tree locations were marked on paper estate maps used by the Trust. On four estates consisting of rows of houses, the survey also involved prior letters to residents to assist in gaining access to rear gardens where most trees stand; this was a complex process to manage effectively.

These surveys were completed in 2006, revealing over 6,000 individual trees (as well as a thousand or two within a woodland the Trust owns). The final - fourth - stage of survey is on trees in scattered properties (individual houses) in a variety of boroughs, to take place over 2007, which will involve the sending out of a survey card to all residents, aerial photographic analysis, and site survey.

The first phase survey was resurveyed during early 2007, to ensure that a system of cyclical monitoring of tree condition is embedded within this work. This helps to ensure the Trust is taking all reasonable regard of its tree stock to help plan future works and minimise any risks that may arise from potential tree failures.

2. Database

A digital database software package was acquired in 2005 - DTE Trees - which is to be populated with all data gathered from the tree surveys, together with other existing information held by the Trust. Capacity issues have prevented this developing further.

3. Training

The Trust's in-house landscape management team have been trained in and resourced for arboricultural management (including climbing), to enable them to undertake tree works on the estates under their day-to-day management, which began in 2004-05. This can complement the work of external contractors. The Trust's Landscape Regeneration Manager received training on tree management databases, and advanced tree inspection surveys over 2005-06, to help improve the organisation's in-house skills.

4. Pro-active management

From the results of the initial surveys, work began on preparing advance schedules of work in 2004-05, with the aim of planning future budgets, and reducing unit costs. In addition, the surveys revealed a Trust-wide level of under-management on much of its tree stock, and the programmes have subsequently attempted to address priorities (rather than simply requests received). This has helped reverse a cut in tree-management budgets, as the true costs of managing our stock in a safe and healthy condition are being realised.

Three arboricultural contractors are on the Trust's books; their work has been monitored and reviewed to assess whether the Trust was getting value for money. Another contractor has been added to the vetted list and efforts are being made to source, in particular, smaller London-based contractors for future work.

5. External partnerships

The Trust struck up a relationship with the Forestry Commission from 2003, partly through its work in developing BedZED and utilising sustainable timber and a wood-chip fuelled CHP plant. This has further developed with resources from the Commission in undertaking a research project on two of the Trust's estates to identify values and attitudes of residents to their local woodland and trees. See: www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/FR0605_trees_social_well_report.pdf/$FILE/FR0605_trees_social_well_report.pdf

The Trust has also contributed to the Mayor's London Tree & Woodland Framework (in partnership with the Forestry Commission), and is currently helping to produce general tree management guidance for social landlords (funded by the Commission).

The Trust has also worked with Trees for Cities on a project at Peabody Hill Woodland, both in preparing for the Capital Woodlands HLF bid, and the subsequent management of that. TfC have undertaken woodland management, and held a number of activities for residents to help raise their awareness of the woodland and its future management.

6. Disseminating information

The Trust published the Tree Strategy in 2004, placing it on the intranet. It is also prepared in-house guidance on tree management policy and procedure, clarifying roles of various staff, and the process of undertaking management from first requests by residents/staff through to works on site. It also identifies the various legal and regulatory duties the Trust is under in respect of trees. Estate managers are informed of all major tree work schedules in advance, and where appropriate, resident representatives are also informed. In cases of potentially controversial works, prior notice is given and the opportunity for residents to feed back to the Trust.

Further information has been published for residents in Peabody Times. The Tree Strategy is to be reviewed and updated during 2007.

Evaluation

 The Tree Strategy has attempted to bring together disparate issues of tree management and problems into a coherent whole. It has endeavoured to collate necessary baseline information, as well as identify and address the priorities for management. In this, it has been largely successful. Surveying trees in communal areas is easy, but difficulties are involved in accessing trees in the rear gardens of street properties, and although a number of resident survey systems have been used, they are complex and time-costly to manage effectively. Inevitably, a small percentage of trees are missed because of this. Aerial photography is a useful tool, especially in identifying the location of trees, but little else can be gleaned from this, and ground-truthing is necessary to assess condition.

The establishment of a computer-based tree management system has not so far been successful; the software is in place, but there hasn't been the resources to input the gathered data, to get it to a stage when it can become an effective tool. This is also compounded as all survey mapping data is paper-based; the ideal solution is to gather this in the field on palm-top mapping software that can be quickly translated onto a GIS within the database. To date, the Trust has not secured the resources to install a GIS system, despite the benefits this would provide for a whole range of the Trust's day-to-day services.

Another constraint has been the inability to date to raise the management budget to an adequate level. Historically, this has been in the region of 30-35% of that required to bring all the stock into good management regimes. This also affects the Trust's customer service, in that the budget is almost entirely committed before the beginning of the year on pre-determined priorities, and requests from residents - no matter their validity - cannot often be dealt with during that year. A series of tree failures and subsidence claims has raised this as an issue within the Trust, but further cost-benefit analysis is required, before a significant increase in a traditionally small budget is accepted.

Resources

 The key tool will be the tree management database that holds all relevant information of every tree on Trust property, and can track management over time. It would help to alert over forthcoming priorities, and analyse trends (for example in areas subject to subsidence claims). The Trust are en route in getting this in place, through the gathering of key baseline data.

The Strategy also helps identifies management policies, core constraints, helps set in train corporate procedures, and provides a resource of information. A simple information leaflet on the Trust's trees and management policies and procedures is to be prepared for residents during 2007.
www.peabody.org.uk
trees