Results
A good report answers the Council's questions before they are asked. Ours are written so the next steps are clear, not returned for avoidable clarification, so most are accepted as written, with no request to revise. Some matters are always contested, and those end up at VCAT, where a report is tested against another expert and questioned by the Tribunal. VCAT's practice note on expert evidence is explicit: an expert's paramount duty is to the Tribunal, not to the party who retained them, and an expert is not an advocate for either side. An assessment that shifts depending on who's paying for it is worthless as evidence. Our principal, Mark Reynolds, has given expert evidence at VCAT more than 45 times since 2004, for Councils and applicants alike. The assessment reads the same whichever side instructs us, because that is the only assessment clients should rely on.
See the casesBackground
Arbor Survey's principal, Mark Reynolds, spent close to two decades working inside Local Government, in planning and vegetation roles at Bayside, Kingston, Boroondara and Cardinia.
He helped write and administer the planning overlays, Local Laws and significant tree registers that now sit at the centre of how a site is assessed. We read those controls the way they were built to be read, to identify which trees carry real retention priority on a site and which do not, and that reading drives our assessment process.
The framework continues to expand: Clause 52.37 was added to every planning scheme in Victoria in September 2025, bringing canopy trees on ordinary residential land into the permit system. So our assessments read those controls the way the Council officer will, and the report answers what they are going to ask.
That is usually why it goes through the first time. Few consulting arborists have sat on the Council side of the desk, reading these applications instead of writing them.
At VCAT, the duty runs to the Tribunal, not the client. We write every report that way, whoever instructs us.
The everyday work
Most of it never gets tested. The report sets out what is on the site, what the development will do to it, and what to do about it, in language that the Council can act on. In most cases, that is the end of it. The permit is issued, the trees are protected, and nobody has to argue about it.
The cases further down are the exceptions: the ones that were worth fighting over, where our report had to stand up against another expert and the Tribunal.
At VCAT
VCAT is where a report gets tested in the open. The other side's advocate cross-examines, the Tribunal asks the hard questions, and your evidence is weighed against the opposing expert's. Our principal, Mark Reynolds, has appeared there more than 45 times since 2004. Every matter is a published decision you can read on AustLII.
Some of the matters
A selection of contested matters. Each quote is the Tribunal's own wording, taken from the published decision. We have omitted the street addresses; the citation is sufficient to locate any of them on AustLII.
“I concur with evidence of Mr Reynolds that alternatives for managing the pavement are available rather than removing the tree.”
Evidence for Whitehorse Council against removing a mature tree under a landscape overlay. The Tribunal agreed and the tree stayed.
“This tree has a high RV as assessed… by Mr Reynolds… We do not agree” with the applicant’s contrary view.
A long development hearing for Casey Council. The Tribunal took our retention-value evidence over the applicant’s arborist.
“I attribute less weight to the Council’s arborist’s assessment than Mr Reynolds’s evidence.”
Tree-risk evidence using QTRA. Our expert was called and cross-examined; the Council’s arborist was not, and the Tribunal gave our evidence more weight.
“I accept Mr Reynolds evidence that the condition of all three trees is poor.”
Condition and retention evidence on three trees for a residential development. The Tribunal accepted it, and preferred it over the Council on one tree.
Satisfied by “a root investigation, the highest and best form of testing”, the Tribunal adopted a 3 m setback.
A non-destructive root investigation settled a crossover-setback dispute. The Tribunal took our 3 m setback over the Council’s more cautious figure.
The permit was to carry the protection “conditions recommended by Mr Reynolds”.
Root investigation and tree-protection evidence for works near retained trees. The Tribunal built our recommended conditions into the permit.
Mr Reynolds “gave more coherent and persuasive evidence… compared to” the opposing arborist, and is “an independent consultant expert who operates at an arm’s length from his clients”.
Species and retention-value evidence. The Tribunal preferred our evidence over the other arborist and noted the independence of our expert, then refused the permit on landscape-character grounds. It is here for what the Tribunal said about the evidence, not the result.
Independent
Arbor Survey gives evidence for Councils and for the applicants they are up against. The report says the same thing either way. If we only told the client what they wanted to hear, it would not last five minutes under cross-examination. Acting for both sides is the proof that we don’t.
Tell us about the site and the trees. We will tell you whether the report will stand up, and what it will take. The full list of our VCAT and planning matters is available on request.
Get in touch