A tree schedule and an architect’s layout should use references that the project team can follow. Before the next drawing issue, check the identifiers, survey scope and proposed works together. A coordination review can expose a numbering problem or design conflict while keeping arboricultural judgement and protected-species advice with the appropriate specialists.
Establish the document pair
Identify the current tree survey, schedule and layout revisions. Check the boundary and whether the surveyed area covers the proposal being discussed. If trees are grouped or renumbered between files, add a clear cross-reference rather than assuming recipients will recognise them.
Ask the survey author to explain uncertainty about a location or identifier. Mark the review’s starting set so that a later drawing does not replace it unnoticed while the authors resolve questions.
Make proposed works traceable
Show which features the proposal retains or affects and connect the works description to the schedule. Distinguish a design option from an instruction. Ask the arborist to review relevant changes to the layout and practical interfaces within their scope.
Include access, service routes and other proposals that may need coordination. Do not turn a generic drawing note into a technical conclusion about the suitability of work. Where ecological issues arise, refer them to the appropriate ecologist as a separate specialist interface.
Issue a coordinated response
Keep a discrepancy log with the drawing location, question and responsible author. Record the agreed response and which files need updating. Before issue, check that the new schedule and layout belong together and list any unresolved matters.
This article supplies no pruning, felling or tree-protection method and does not determine permissions. The aim is to make the project’s information consistent enough for the responsible specialists and contractors to understand the actual proposal.
Information register
| Comparison | What to check |
|---|---|
| Identity | Tree and group labels match or have cross-references |
| Coverage | Survey scope and proposal boundary are clear |
| Works | Descriptions identify affected features |
| Response | Reviewed changes appear in the correct documents |
A practical example
Illustrative example: A revised layout labels a retained group differently from the tree schedule. The coordinator asks the authors to resolve the reference and records the response. The contractor then receives a coordinated set without having to guess which group the instruction concerns.
Before the next issue
- Identify the current revisions.
- Cross-reference labels between documents.
- Options and instructions are distinguishable.
- Specialist questions have owners.
- The final issue note explains unresolved matters.
For the relevant specialist scope, see ACP’s specialist assessment service.
Professional context: Government protected-species planning advice.
To discuss the project information or review scope, contact ACP with the current proposal and the specific question that needs resolving.