As part of each landscape plan I do, for example, to submit with a planning application or to discharge a planning condition, I include a detailed maintenance specification. This is generally part of the drawing so that the contractors are aware of the maintenance requirements once the scheme has been implemented.
Maintenance specifications in the past would cover a period of five years, via the developer’s agent or a management company. However, with BNG (Biodiversity Net Gain) input, this is often required for a period of thirty years.
Maintenance clauses will be written to reflect the scheme it refers to, so each one is likely to be different. Depending on the scheme, they can include checking and adjusting stakes and ties: watering; weeding; removing litter; sweeping mulch spillage (if used); topping up mulch; re-firming plant stock; pruning to encourage good form; applying fertiliser to areas/ plants; grass cutting; wildflower area cutting; checking for pest disease, death and damage; replacement of dead or damaged plants.
Each of the relevant operations should be included in the maintenance contract which is the basis for the maintenance operations carried out by the contractor. Unfortunately, selection of tenders is too often a “race to the bottom” with the lowest price being chosen over quality of work.
Contractors should employ operatives who have experience and knowledge related to horticulture. This will obviously increase costs, but at the same time, there will be an understanding of the maintenance requirements and the skills to carry them out.
Rather than trying to cover every aspect of problematic maintenance, I have chosen a few common, easily noticed instances and one or two more unusual examples.
Adjusting stakes and ties should be straightforward. Stakes should be checked to ensure that they are firm, and if not, they should be re-firmed. Ties should be checked to ensure that they are holding the tree firmly to the stake and that they are not too tight. How many times have you seen a tree being “strangled” by a tie which is too tight? By contrast, I have also seen ties which have become loose and the stakes no longer support the tree and ties which are too tight which end up pulling the stake/s out as they grow, against the odds.
Weeding should be easy to check whether it has been done or not, but perennial weeds pulled up, leaving the roots behind will just mean that the weeds will be back in the same place at the next visit. Where the use of weedkiller has been accepted, a common problem is “spray drift”, where the targeted weeds have been sprayed, but so have the adjacent plants that are part of the scheme. Unfortunately, it can still be cheaper to ignore this practice and replace the dead plants at the end of the contract period.
Grass cutting should also be easy to check. The grass has been cut, or it hasn’t. There are several quality issues here. Because contractors work on sites come rain or shine, the grass can be cut when it is raining or when the grass is still wet. This can cause uneven cutting whether a cylinder mower or a rotary mower has been used. If the grass is relatively new, whether turfed or seeded, the wheels on mowers can churn up the grass, especially on turns. Both cylinder mowers and rotary mowers can cause damage to trees and shrubs within grassed areas, but the worst culprit is the strimmer, especially those with ultra heavy lines or blades. Damage from careless use of strimmers can wipe out a young plant completely or create wounds which allow diseases to enter.
Watering is a tricky one. To water with the stated amount of water takes time, and is difficult to measure, so this is often something which is skimped. The plants don’t necessarily die or even appear to struggle at first, but it may make them more susceptible to disease and will certainly make them less drought tolerant as roots will develop nearer to the surface to be able to take up what little water there is.
Finally, “pruning to encourage good form”. This terminology allows for many interpretations and “good form” for the landscape maintenance operative may not be “good form” for the person checking the work. I would suggest that in the UK, the most comprehensive information about pruning is contained within the RHS website. However, this means more time and neither the operative nor the person checking the work are likely to have sufficient time available to check this website for each plant in the scheme. From this conundrum comes the development of pruning shrub borders as though they were wide hedges. This is often seen around commercial car parks where a shrub bed with a variety of different shrubs is pruned with a hedge trimmer, into a homogenous blob.
At least part of the problem is that while individual operations only take a matter of minutes to carry out, those minutes add up and the contractor needs to be away to another site.
The other key part of the problem is the question of who is checking the maintenance? Ideally, of course, it should be someone who knows what they are looking for, in terms of contract compliance and has the authority to request changes, or compliance, should it be necessary. Yes, I am obviously biased, it should be a chartered landscape architect and a chartered landscape architect with knowledge and experience of plants and maintenance. Most of the time, if anyone checks at all, it will be a clerk of works from the development company, who is more used to checking construction sites and building maintenance. Alternatively, it will be someone with an interest in gardening, who has been given the role by the management company
Unfortunately, the whole issue of commercial landscape maintenance boils down to the fact that it is unlikely to be checked at all.
Share this post: