You both make very good points,and it will be interesting to see if BCC reply with more than a short curtious email.
The provision of habitat for native fauna in urban areas is very important, but as many of us have noted this tree does not seem to fit the criteria. It maybe that BCC did have someone qualified report on the tree, and possible that someone with a level 4 or above CALM did decide to turn this tree into habitat...possible...but not likely.
It should be the case that BCC have undertaken a documented risk assessment of the tree before and after the "work" was completed. If not their procedures are well and truely lacking, and worse they leave themselves open to liability should anything happen as a result of the work.
If I put on my cutting crew hat, I think it is possible the job was not done according to the specs originally thought through by whomever decided to make it a habitat tree, either because they didn't convey any specs at all or the specs were vague and beyond the crew.
Whatever the real course of events its most unlikely that anyone outside BCC will ever know them. What we're left with is a tree that looks unlike any habitat tree I've ever seen, looks like a lop job, and is a lop job. The smaller diameter branches will fail over time causing at the very least maintenance issues if not worse. The larger branches are likely to stay up there for a long while yet.....unless of course the tree is colonised by agressive funal pathogens (if its not already...what killed it)
Bottom line for me is given the time I spend writing reports, management plans and tree work specifications for all sorts of clients including many LGA's this example of "work" is not good enough, it falls well short of any acceptable benchmarks for arboricultural practices in any area, let alone a public one.
SF