Results

Reports prepared to answer Council questions clearly.

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 cases

Background

Two decades of experience in and for Council

Arbor Survey's principal, Mark Reynolds, has spent two decades working in and for Local Government: more than a decade in planning and vegetation roles at Bayside, Kingston, Boroondara and Cardinia, and since then advising and giving evidence for Councils across Victoria.

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, and was rewritten by Amendment VC315 in September 2026. 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

Prepared as though it may be reviewed

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

When a matter is contested

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.

More than 45
VCAT hearings since 2004, by our principal Mark Reynolds
20 yrs
Our principal's work in and for Council planning and vegetation
Both sides
Evidence for Councils and for applicants
On record
Every matter public and citable on AustLII

Some of the matters

What Tribunal members have said about our evidence

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.

DHallapah v Whitehorse CC, [2026] VCAT 616
For the CouncilTree retained

“Management as described by Mr Reynolds will not adversely affect the health, appearance or significance of the tree, nor the tree’s contribution to SLO2.”

Evidence for Whitehorse Council against removing a mature Lemon-scented Gum under a landscape overlay. Cross-examined on two risk assessments and on the claimed building damage; the Tribunal found removal was not needed on health, growth or risk grounds and that the damage had not been shown to be the tree’s doing.

Nichol v Whitehorse CC, [2026] VCAT 265
For the CouncilTree retained

“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.

Parklea Berwick v Casey CC, [2024] VCAT 287
For the CouncilEvidence preferred

“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-priority evidence over the applicant’s arborist.

Sale v Yarra CC, [2025] VCAT 112
For the applicantPermit granted

“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.

Kaldor Homes v Monash CC, [2023] VCAT 890
For the applicantPermit granted

“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.

El Cheikh v Bayside CC, [2018] VCAT 925
For the applicantPermit granted

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.

Taylor-Sands v Melbourne CC, [2025] VCAT 919
Tree protectionPermit granted

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.

Williams v Kingston CC, [2023] VCAT 859
For the applicantTribunal preferred our evidence; permit refused on other grounds

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-priority 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.

Beyond the Tribunal

Called-in matters and advisory committees

Some matters are called in by the Minister and heard by a standing advisory committee of Planning Panels Victoria rather than decided at VCAT. The evidence is tested the same way, in a hearing, under cross-examination, against the other side’s experts. The quote is the Committee’s own wording from its published report.

Priority Projects Standing Advisory Committee, Referral 52 (VCAT call-in P241/2025), Stanley Road and McGrady Road, Grantville. Report to the Minister, 17 June 2026
For the proponentMethod accepted, permit granted

“The Committee considers Mr Reynolds a suitably qualified arborist able to make expert judgements regarding the long term viability of trees within the road reserve. The Committee is satisfied Mr Reynolds has undertaken an appropriate and expert assessment of the impacts of the proposal on trees and accepts his opinion regarding the trees that are ‘retainable’ despite levels of tree encroachment above 10 per cent.”

Native vegetation removal along two road reserves to give access to an approved sand quarry, refused by Council, taken to VCAT and then called in by the Minister. Our principal surveyed and ranked every tree, fed the retention priorities into the road design, and assessed construction impact tree by tree. Council’s case was that 146 of the 193 trees shown as retained had more than 20 per cent encroachment into the notional root zone and should be treated as lost. The Committee accepted our distinction between encroachment and impact, found the assessment “appropriate and consistent with industry standards and relevant guidance”, and recommended the permit issue. The permit has since been granted.

Independent

Why we act for either side

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.

Have a matter that might end up at VCAT?

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