Bristol Street Trees

Bristol Street Trees - BBC Green Room Article

admin — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:11:30 +0000

Introduction

Following the recent news item on the BBC website about the death of the urban tree, the response was so overwhelming the BBC moderator had to suspend the blog after just 24 hours so many people didn’t have a chance to have their say. We have extracted many of the comments about street trees and put them in different themes. This will enable you to comment on a comment rather than the original article.

The themes in order are:

the benefits of urban trees
the health and safety / legal issues
is it down to cost ?
agreement with the article from around the UK (and wider)
getting the right species
the case in defence of the council arboriculturists
international experience

See individual categories below for the comments:

What to do and what not to do. Some international case studies…

admin — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:09:52 +0000

Here in Malaysia where we have many beautiful trees, our local council Petaling Jaya (KL) is going to destroy the several hundred year old Sungai Boleh forest reserve. One of the few remaining urban forest reserve in an already over developed areas and replace with high density housing. I grew up in London with such greenery and had hoped to continue see such beauty here, but we are destroying our green heritage. Rob Hempel, Kuala Lumpur
I’m not sure if this problem is only happening in Briton but I’ve been noticing it lately here in the States. I remember walking along the side walk in near a street by my house where I’d be surrounded by very large trees and I’d enjoy the cool air I’d receive just walking under it, especially on those hot California days. But now when I walk by I no longer see any trees, just a bunch of worthless stumps that serve no one any purpose. Now it’s understandable that the city wants to decrease the risk of there being an accident concerning a tree but at what cost. We have a tree in our backyard and it’s a fairly big tree, but when the branches grow too big, my father and I trim the branches down, this method seems much more reasonable than cutting the entire tree down. What the public doesn’t know is that we need more large trees more than ever. As the temperatures keep rising throughout the world we will have less protection against the sun or any other natural occurrences. Yes! we can stay inside and put the ac don full blast, but all were losing is money and energy, when instead, sitting under a tree cost absolutely nothing. Not to mention, that by cutting down the trees it makes the area seem less charming, less desirable to live there because there’s nothing alluring there, maybe a stump or two. Now when I walk on the sidewalk all I am is hot and exposed. Oscar Medina, Escondido/California United States
In many parts of Adelaide, Australia, local councils have a “significant tree” rule which makes it illegal to cut down trees over a certain size, even if they lie on your own private property. Whilst this can be annoying, especially if you honestly are concerned that the tree is about to fall over and destroy part of your house, it does have an upside for keeping the streets reasonably green. Graham G, Adelaide, Australia
Your picture of the tree with the comment: “instead of reducing the risk by removing the tree, one could remove the bench under the tree” is priceless. Brilliant article. Keep up the fight - it’s an important one! Juliet Neal-Boyd, San Francisco, CA USA
Trees in the city give a good pulse on the psych of all beings. Closer to our nature. Smells better than exhaust pipes too ;)Mathieu, Belgium
I live in San Francisco and we have an organization called Friends Of the Urban Forest. The city actively encourages tree planting along the sidewalks and will offset some of the cost to plant and maintain them. The species of tree is carefully chosen for each location to prevent any problems with it in the future, such as getting too large for the space, damaging underground infrastructure etc. Adam, San Francisco, USA
In this part of the world, concrete and paving is prized over trees. We used to have small pockets of urban forest trees, but they have been replaced by urban cemeteries or upmarket housing. The value of trees in the tropics and the link to increased flooding, higher temperatures etc does not seem to register with councils here either. MV Hayman, Malaysia

In defence of the council arboriculturists. Are they doing their best within a limited budget? Is it just the tree (Parks) department’s decision? Are they taking account of all the interests of the community?

admin — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:07:53 +0000

Well done Vassili; but Bristol Council supports the Forest of Avon, which has planted thousands of trees in the past twenty years, and has just voted an extra £50k for new planting this year, so they are not all bad. Bristol’s street and park trees represent a vast arboretum of some 300 species, and include at least 200 veterans; this is a priceless resource for the city, which should be far more valued by every citizen that it is. And the money nationally for parks maintenance has halved over the past twenty years as a result of the continuous pressure for efficiency or productivity savings; as a result the quality of our parks, and hence our lives, has fallen steadily. Richard Bland, Bristol UK
Having worked with plants my entire life and being employed as an arboriculturist I must state that I don’t think that articles like this allow people to see the full scale of what a council arboricultural officer deals with on a daily basis. Let me assure all readers - anyone who chooses to work with trees and spends time studying them at college or university does not take any decision regarding them lightly, certainly if a tree is removed it is for a reason that is just and appropriate because of either a health and saftey risk or as a result of one of the many acts of parliment (such as sight lines for roads as mentioned above) which we have a limited control. I read with interest the comments regarding health and safety and risk assessment - trees have a number of possible structural defects not to mention a substantial list of different fungi and bacteria that can affect them in a number of ways. I believe the statistics provided above is 1:20 000 000 in terms of people killed by trees but this isn’t the only risk to worry about - we have to consider damage to persons and property. I like the comment of ‘move the bench from beneath the tree’ but that won’t stop a person sitting beneath the tree if they want to. Subsidence/insurance risks regarding trees are frequently cited as a reason for trees to be felled. Frequently this is the case - particularly in areas of highly shrinkable clay. The bare fact is that for councils to regularly prune trees to the specification that is required to significantly reduce the ‘risk of tree related clay shrinkage subsidence’ for the long term (and do this on a very regular basis)would be both incredibly expensive, and also practically impossible to do due to the volume of work required - not to mention the fact that the ‘wonderful leafy trees’ mentioned above would actually resemble hat stands with no leaves being present. Also to be aware here is that felling trees actually saves insurers money in repair costs to properties - if more expensive and significantly larger underpinning schemes are required where do you think insurance companies will recoup the money from? Let me add a parting thought. The trees that cause the emotion tend to be the large forest type trees that define our captial and oldest towns and cities (London Plane etc - which incidently isn’t a native tree). These were planted by the victorians to fullfil a specific need and requirement - they were managed very efficiently in a time when wages for the average joe (or josephine) were very, very low. These same trees are the ones that the public wants to see replanted time and again. They were designed by nature to live in forests not urban areas therefore they do not easily mesh with it - they create untold problems if left to grow unchecked - could all those who want to pay more council tax please raise there hand. Large forest type trees belong in large gardens, parks and woodlands not in the middle of towns. The Victorian legacy is wonderful but that is what it is - the country has moved on, we once thought the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth, thoughts change and things change - our concept of what is appropriate in the modern urban environment also needs to be reconsidered. Matt, Essex
Having worked for 10 years as an arboricultural officer in local government, both in the UK and NZ, I can confirm that retaining trees in an urban environment is a lost cause. I meet people daily who inform me that they love trees BUT, they want the tree in their garden removed as its dropping leaves/berries/twigs, shading the garden, lifting the paving slabs, attracting birds, presenting a potential hazard or exacerbating an asthma condition. Ultimately, the decision on whether a tree stays or goes is ‘influenced’ by councillors, elected members with no formal arboricultural background but with a tendency to make decisions which please the public, especially when approaching an election. In my experience the vast majority of council tree officers are hard working and committed to protecting those trees that are worthy of keeping, even if it is against the tree owners wishes and attracts much adverse attention. On the bright side, in my opinion the tree protection rules in the UK are second to none. Tim Errington, Auckland NZ
Matt in Essex - you are missing the real points here. You say “The Victorian legacy is wonderful but that is what it is - the country has moved on… the modern urban environment also needs to be reconsidered.” The real point is about climate change and tree canopy cover. This is vital in a warming world - planting small trees in towns just won’t help (why do we bang on about deforestation of the tropical rain forests?). And your point regarding insurance companies is equally invalid. If we had more trees in towns (and elsewhere) the amount of flood damage would decline (the larger the tree the more it slows run-off, especially in urban areas). So insurance companies would BENEFIT by not paying billions in flood claims. It seems to me that the debate has passed on from ‘the tree officer is always right’. What we need now is thinking that takes account of the wider issues, not just next year’s pruning budget. Bill, Bristol
I heard that my housing association was to cut four trees down - I sent them a message imploring them not to, as it’s rare we have such a glorious oasis similar to the one I see from my bedroom window. Lo and behold, they agreed and have stated they will not remove any trees. Also, our local council (Manchester) has incentives to plant street trees - and we are actively measuring up the pavements and filling out the forms ready for a hopeful acceptance! Paul Graham, Manchester
Yes trees are beautiful and beneficial, but they can also wreck your property. In a hot summer they want every drop of water they can get and if it’s under your house they’ll go and take it. The trouble is the people who designed and built the treelined avenues have long departed with their profits. The problems of house subsidence and tree disease are very real now with incidence of long hot summer months. The trees’ welfare has to be balanced against your property being damaged and becoming potentially worthless. Proper management has to be the answer and sometimes they have to go and hopefully smaller ones put in their place. Barry, Milton Keynes
I work as a Building Surveyor having Studied Building Surveying and the Environment at Plymouth University. Unfortunately it is often necessary to remove Trees which are too close to properties especially in areas of High Clay content in the soil. I personally Don’t like advising people that the cause is a Local Authority Owned street Tree. As For claims of “Bogus Subsidence claims”, It is impossible to have a tree removed by a Local Authority without proof that the roots have caused the subsidence. This investigation normally takes over a year to prove it is the tree. Faced with foundation damage to their home or the removal of a street tree, most reasonable people will concede that the tree removal is a necessary evil. Nick Brown, Tring, Herts
I am a Councillor in Frinton, we have managed to prevent this rape of the environment by imposing a large tree conservation area. Would strongly recommend that people get tree conservation orders on all the trees they value. It really works and here regularly prevents developers destroying trees for profit! David Evans, Frinton-on-Sea

You must get the right species. Planting an oak 5m from a building in a shrinkable clay soil is asking for trouble but should we just eliminate risk and plant cherry trees?

admin — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:03:39 +0000

Planting any tree is good, provided it is not ailanthus altissima (Tree of Heaven)or another invasive species, but weedy ornamental trees are not very attractive & useful to wildlife. In Islington the council have planted a lot of these such trees lately eg Gingko. Vandals & drunks have destroyed many of these before they have become established. last year the council replanted one spot in York Way (near King’s Cross) three times after the trees were broken. People are pathetic. Dominic Stiles, London
I totally agree, it angers me that in my road there is not one tree, and when councils do plant them it is the same limited choice of Flowering Cherry, Alder or Mountain Ash. What has happened to mighty Oaks, and soaring Poplars. Trees are not the problem it’s those who smash the pavements parking on them, and concrete over their gardens. We need more greenery in our towns. John Nelhams, London,UK
I agree completely with saving urban trees but NOT to plant just any “fast-growing” tree to replace them. Here in the US we have major problems with invasive non-native trees that have literally taken over our woodlands and created a mono-culture tree farm of one species. The Chinese Tallow is one example. It is grows very fast, is worthless as lumber, provides very little use to wildlife, outcompetes the native vegataion needed by wildlife and spreads uncontrollably everywhere! You cannot kill it by cutting it down. Herbacide (with a permit) must be applied. Needless to say, it is a major bane to our wild areas here in Texas and many other areas of the US. If you replace trees USE NATIVE TREES!!! They belong there, the wildlife uses them to one degree or another, they grow well where they are found with far less care, water, etc. regardless of soil type, cold, heat, dry or wet conditions. Hey, that’s why they are “native”! Bill Tarbox, Magnolia, TX
A small number of my neighbours have been lobbying the council to remove Lime Trees from our street on grounds that the sap is ‘damaging’ the paintwork of their cars. Thankfully, the council has so far ignored their pleading. Paul A, London

Other messages of general support with Vassili’s original article. Are there any points raised you disagree with?

admin — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:51:54 +0000

I entirely support the comments made in the article, and I entirely agree that no town trees should be cut without full consultation with and agreement of people who “live” with the tree. These people should be able to decide that a tree may stay or go and any proposal to cut the tree should include an environmental impact statement (to be made by an independent scientist, who must contact all nearby people as well as the local authority(ies) involved). This assessment must cover what action will be taken to plant a new tree instead of the old one. Only subsidence of a house, identified at a public hearing by informed experts, or of clear danger from death of the tree and the proven threat of falling limbs, should be regarded as proof of the need to cut; and only when all other possiblities have been exhausted. The tree’s right to live should be recognised and it should be allowed to live until it is proved it cannot do so without a clear and demonstrable, quantifiable, danger. Christopher Mathews Dr C P Mathews, Cheselbourne, Dorset
Wandsworth Council managed to chop a number of trees on Magdalen road after complaints from the adjacent (private) tennis court. The residents of the road were up in arms but there’s noone quicker than a council worker with a chain saw. Now there’s a bleak gap in a once leafy stretch of road and the tennis courts look like an exercise area for the nearby Wandsworth prison. It seems that once the trees are gone, they’re gone… Elizabeth, London
Hear, Hear! Too many trees are ruthlessly removed, or brutally pruned to resemble telegraph poles. Nothing can beat trees for civilising a city, and in my opinion they should have automatic protection (that is, they should only be removed if there is a really good reason for it). Peter Humphreys, Swindon, UK
I totally agree. We need as many trees as possible. Not only in the streets but parks and any suitable area. Not only good for wildlife but also the street scape. Always pester the local authority about the Governments ‘Pound for Pound’ tree planting scheme. Very useful. Can also try the Government’s Specimen Tree planting scheme which is also worthwhile. Always harangue any official not doing the right thing. richard - East London, london
Been to Stratford on Avon recently ? The beautiful Bancroft gardens alongside the River Avon are being brought up to ‘World Class’ standard so for the past few weekends distraught residents and visitors could watch gorgeous cherry and willow trees being cut down to make way for designer trees in sterile landscaped areas. The trees had significant value to our town in terms of visual beauty and giving shade in the summer months but it wasn’t enough to save them from ‘progress’. Suggest you stay away from Stratford until the ‘improvements’ are finished - and don’t expect to see any mature trees. Tim Baker, Stratford on Avon, UK
The author is most definately correct in asserting the problem is in protecting publicly owned trees. I imagine its not the risk of killing someone that is an issue, but of being sued. Council owns tree, house subsides, house owner claims insurance, insurance sues council for not removing tree is the concern I imagine. I also imagine the cost of moving the bench and replacing a whole tarmaced footpath is also far more than removing a tree, to utilise the example given. There has to be more comittment to protecting trees, both politically and financially, and especially a procedure put in place for consulting local residents when works to street trees are proposed. Jon, Bristol
I absolutely agree with Vassilli, we all need to do more to protect our urban trees, too many tree lined avenues have been lost over the years, leaving a barren landscape. I have one happy story though, one household in my sisters street paid someone to ring bind a tree outside their house wishing to kill the tree and make way for a dropped curb. Lots of local residents spotted this skulduggery and alerted the local council and the police. The tree still stands tall and beautiful because of people power! Col Linehan, Bristol, England
Hear Hear, the council in cardiff central seem determined to lop off the top of every large tree they can get their hands on it’s a disgrace. That and the trees they are replacing them with - ornamental cherry - are all diseased and are not able to survive the changing climate conditions, shame on them! Alex, Cardiff
Here is a diary of a central Bristol Lime tree planted close to where I work: Planted 2004 - hot summer, no aftercare and almost died so I watered it every few days throughout dry periods that year and the next. Next year - Stem severely damaged by council strimmer, put plastic tree guard around base & two months later this was actually strimmed off. I Replaced this with sturdy metal mesh. Next year tree snapped in half by vandal, - I cut off and removed the top half and attemped to make a clean cut. Following year tree recovered and grew strongly. Last week vandal pulled tree right over breaking most of the roots - purchased two ties and strapped tree up to existing post & cross fingers……… Great article Vassili - its a long hard struggle trying to stop the removal of perfectly healthy mature trees in Bristol, and an equally difficult one trying to keep newly planted ones alive. If more people took reponsibilty for trees in their neighbourhood perhaps we can turn the tide. The next time we have a drought, look on your own doorstep & get out the watering can!! SJ, Bristol
Trees are not alone, hedges in this rural area of Somerset are disappearing on a daily basis.Where new housing is planned on what is currently green field sites, the hedges including trees are being ripped out of the ground,this well in advance of the commencement of building work.It would appear that thought may be given to the preservation of mature trees,providing that they meet a pre determined set of criteria for survival, but mile after mile of hedgerow is disappearing. Les Miles, Yeovil Somerset
We have just had 5 healthy trees chopped down in a few hundred yards in the cause of a road widening scheme which will provide a bus lane, which our local County Council assures us will save 4 minutes on a 9 mile bus journey. Total local opposition to the scheme and the fact that the buses lose far more time than 4 minutes before reaching the start of the relatively short bus lane-about a mile at the most-was, of course, totally ignored. DG, Cheltenham
in hounslow where i live i have noticed more and more lovely mature trees being cut down and when i phone my local council office to find out why this is happening i get told things like this tree is dangerous thats if you can actually get though to the right department. when there are new trees planted they seem to be small and never seem to grow,it as if they are stunted and will never replace the lovely mature so called dangerous trees cut down in the first place,im am totally discusted with this urban de-forestation and will oppose it wherever i can.
paul taylor, hounslow middlesex
After asking if we agree with this article the writer highlights the scale of problem trees face. Surely it is the houses and traffic that are the hazard to the trees that do so much for us. Felling city trees should be resorted to only after every alternative option has been seen to fail. There are plenty of skilled tree surgeons who can remove deadwood, trim back canopies and manage risk far more cheaply than the cost of removing a large tree once felled.
Jonathan, Slough, UK
I applaud Vassili in his actions. I’ve long believed that many of the problems we are facing, both locally and nationally, are as a result of fewer trees. More trees can help reduce flooding, they contribute to a reduction in global warming. Personally I favour new legislation that any tree removed for whatever reason has to be replaced immediately, nearby, with 3 native trees of a similar size and stature. This goes for builders, domestic properties, public parks etc. etc. Jon, Cumbria
Our local council in collaboration with a group of shop keepers have passed plans to fell the only 2 decent trees in our town, the reasons have been proved to be nonsense or at least easily fixed. The tree officer for the council has recommended a Tree Preservation Order as there is nothing wrong with them and should be preserved. The council went against his and other officers advice and for their own unfathomable reasons voted to fell them. About 1500 people immediately signed a petition to save the trees and a protest group has been put together. The only people who want the trees gone are the council and some shop keepers. No sensible reason has been given. A report was commissioned by the protest, it found the trees in good order and non problematic to the local environment and in fact beneficial. The protesters are now looking at a maladministration investigation at the way the council has acted. To add some confusion it has been discovered that one tree is in-fact a Falklands Conflict Memorial… Steve Price, Malvern, UK
It amused me when I first started working in the Netherlands, when I read in the Dutch paper an article about Coronation Street. They described it as a soap opera based in a typical English city, with terraced houses and no trees. It’s something that outsiders find most strange, and having lived over here for 9 years, I now feel the same. Jim Cornish, Gent Belgium
In the area that I walk my dogs each day I can count at least 100 trees that have been removed or replaced with smaller varieties. Roads that are called Avenues have been stripped of all large trees and the grass verges are now used as parking spots. Even the back gardens of nearby houses have had mature trees ripped out due to scare mongering by so called Tree Surgeons. I have tried to conteract this by planting some larger trees in our back garden. Royalsabre, Gravesend, Kent
Nice to hear a lone voice speaking up for the trees. London is one of the loveliest major cities on the world with Trees everywhere. Lets keep it that way. If people do not like the trees they should remember what came first. Andy, London
This very scenario is taking place in Milton Keynes. We have wide boulevards lined with semi-mature plane trees of some 50 - 60 years of age which are being removed by MK Council and English Partnerships to make way for development or to change the street-scape by building up to the boulevard. English Partnerships have commissioned a landscape report which recommends replacing some of the plane trees with vertical species of Hornbeam and other more ornamental, smaller habitat trees such as flowering cherries. We urgently need to protect our trees and maintain the beauty of boulevards lined with plane trees which are just starting to gain a majestic feel. We also suffered the removal of beautiful specimen arboretum grown trees from a roundabout close to M1 Junction 14 so that the road could be slightly widened. If a little care had been taken not all the trees had to be removed. These were particularly fine species. Apparently English Partnerships are now suggesting replacing them with plane trees that have been removed from elsewhere in Milton Keynes. What nonsense is this!! Mature trees cannot be successfully replanted unless they have been container grown and prepared for removal - the plane trees will die. We need action and help before any more are destroyed. Trees take a very long time to mature - a chainsaw can devastate the streetscape in a matter of minutes - and has already done so in Milton Keynes. This does need urgent intervention - there are other ways of achieving the development that English Partnership wants to achieve - the trees must be saved - they are more important than the buildings. julie barrie, Milton keynes
Have a look at Milton Keynes!! Urban Eden, a group fighting for the preservation of those elements (such as our boulevard trees), have been saying these things for years and fighting the engineer and council endlessly! It’s a national issue…and it needs more media cover…England would be all tar and paving in a few years….! Trees provide structure which survives much longer than any other element within the built environment!! Liezel Kruger, Milton Keynes
Coming from Sheffield Europe greenest city, I fully appriciate trees and the benefits they do clearly have in urban areas. Trees should be planted in every city in as many places as possible! Adz, Sheffield
I wholly agree. What we need is an ‘Urban Woodland Trust’ to protect existing trees and promote the planting of trees and mini-woods in urban locations. David Norris, Wadhurst
I totally agree with Vassili. Trees, hedges and open spaces too are vitally important to our general wellbeing. Too often these are sidelined by councils who are too eagre to take the easy way out or to pander to the Health & Safety jobsworths. Keep our trees. Look after them and respect them and we will all reap the benefits. Graham Gilbert, Totnes
I wholeheartedly agree with Vassili. The problem is not only the felling and the failure to replant properly - but also the widespread vandalism in the form of the lopping and height reductions that are inflicted on so many trees. As a former tree surgeon I know that most of this practice is totally unnecessary. Can you put me in touch with Vassili? John Parham, Bristol UK

Apart from the risks of being sued is it simply that trees in cities are too expensive a luxury and cutting them down is a way of Councils saving money?

admin — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:48:04 +0000

Councils are doing this to save money on street sweepers. Bob, Wycombe
Damn right! It’s bl**dy ridiculous that council idiots are felling old trees just so they can make cost savings on street repairs. I think the costs would be more than compensated for if we all lived in streets with more trees, given the benefits of shading, wildlife attraction, cleaner air … and just that feeling of being closer to nature. Councils… LEAVE THE TREES ALONE! Ross Marnie, Glasgow, Scotland
Well done Vassili for highlighting the issue…the problem is, I think, you might be fighting a losing battle. The council can’t (or won’t) afford to keep large trees alive, they are too expensive to maintain and are cheaper dead. The insurers / solicitors insist the large growing trees should be felled to eliminate risks to buildings / people. And who is replacing them ? No one. At the current rate of loss there will be virtually no street trees in Bristol by 2050…(except a few cherry trees). I don’t know about other cities but I guess the pressures are similar…. This is the urban environment most people are voting for (if they can be bothered to vote) and willing to (not) pay for. So tree-less cities is what we will get…..Vas don’t give up hope, stand as a councillor to kick the current lot out…you’ll get my vote (and money for trees). Clive Stevens, Bristol
I agree entirely with your article. I see trees being taken down all the time in Stamford, peterborough and pretty much everywhere. Not to mention all the benefits scientifically they provide a sense of coalition between modern housing and nature. I have always wanted to be part of a “Save the trees Group” and would love to see things likr this popping up in every major town and city across the country. I once shared a lift with a guy from the local council who was responsible for assesing if a tree could be taken down or not and he said it was more about how much money was on the table rather than environment and situation. Disgusting! Trees are a beautiful part of nature and offer some brief break from the highly stressful and chaotic daily life we all live. Thats gotta be worth alot! Antony, Stamford

Health and Safety/Legal issues – in 2001 the House of Lords ruled in an expensive case for Westminster City Council that they should have chopped down a street tree earlier. They didn’t and had to pay over £500,000 compensation to one property owner plus legal costs. Councils don’t want to get sued…is this what is killing our trees? Individual rights take precedence over public benefit? Is it our paranoia about health and safety?

admin — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:43:40 +0000

An office that I worked for had a Car Park that was lined with lovely mature trees until recently. I asked one of the staff that I am still in contact with as to what happened to them. The response? A female employee who is well known for teetering around on six inch stilettos no matter the weather fell and hurt her arm while walking on the pavement underneath the trees. The result? No more trees, just a line of stumps where they used to be. Mick C, Leeds
Wait a minute, people are afraid of getting attacked by trees?? Move to New Zealand!! We have trees by the squillions and you can’t sue for personal injury! Mimi Adams, Christchurch, New Zealand
There were once many trees in my area and they too have been cut down… why? Because everytime a tree branch fell on a parked car (due to storms etc) people were suing the council for damage! The council did the most cost effective thing, and there you go- no trees! Now those very same people who blamed the council for falling branches are now blaming them for lack of greenery… typical Graham, Ashford Middlesex, UK
“Home-owners can see trees as a nuisance, affecting their investment” Well tough titty, they don’t own the trees we all do. And anyway if a building is only treated an investment, the owners desrerve all they get - this selfish and greedy behaviour has had massive detremental effect on the economy for millions, let alone the environmental and social degredation it brings on us all. Nick S, Northampton

The benefits of urban trees….you have mentioned shade in the summer, mitigation of bad weather and flooding, amenity and beauty, wildlife and even house prices (yes evidence shows that leafy areas have a price premium of between 5 to 13%) so property developers hear this just buy a street plant some trees and wait to reap your rewards ! What other benefits are there to leafy streets?

admin — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:33:19 +0000

I was told that in Singapore, the government decided to keep trees in urban areas because they calculated that one tree is worth two air-conditioners in terms of keeping people comfortable (not sure how they compared indoors vs out…). Cooling may not be a year-round issue for you in the UK, but I’m sure it makes a difference in the summer. Shi-Hsia Hwa, Penang, Malaysia
I am also a tree lover, I feel they really add value to a street and/or house. Not only do they provide environmental benefits but they look good too. I have heard that our brain or senses development is affected by our environment and would not be surprised if looking at trees made us happier or even more intelligent (houses are easy for our brains to decypher the image, but trees much more random). Many people now seem to be obsessed with predictable lines, clean looks and pure finishes (houses, cars etc), but this is the opposite to nature and I’m sure cannot be good for our minds. I know what I prefer to look at. My flat overlooks an area of high priced houses with many trees around them, with a view over the top of the Belfast lough, I enjoyed it on daily basis. Unfortunately our nearest neighbours decided to remove 2 of the biggest oldest trees in the area, and now I am left staring at another neighbours house (around 30% of my view). Tony, Holywood, N. Ireland
I battled this and lost against our councilman 3 yrs ago. He happened to have rented a space for his office on the Main St and ‘asked’ the parks dept if they could ‘move’ the tree (25 feet tall mind you!) as it was blocking his law business sign. They cut it down with no forewarning, after much protest, promised the neighborhood org. a new tree which never materialized and the councilman moved out a year later…. In Texas we need all the shade we can get with weeks over 40º.! Better save what you can now ready for a sunny day. daniel, Fort Worth, Texas, USA
I totally agree. I live on a terraced street that once had trees. Now there areas are bricked over and used to park motorbikes or put the week’s rubbish bags. I really feel like making a similar stand to my council (Northampton Town Council) but feel a tad powerless and a tad folly to expect anything to be done. Trees would vastly improve the run-down area I live in - once a proud industrial terraced street is now a gloomy, grey, dirty street. Footpaths and roads have not been relaid in decades so I believe this has a lot do with attitudes, respect, crime and even prosperity in the area. More trees are needed!! Dan, Northampton
I love the big old street trees - the London Planes, horse chestnut and near to my house an ancient oak tree on the edge of the school playground. It would be an ecological disaster if the fear mongerers and insurance companies demand their removal. No birds, insects, bats, squirrels and no natural shade. All old trees need to be carefully managed and preserved, plus when needed a careful policy of replacement with similar long lived specimens to continue the natural life cycle. Trees are not just for life - they were there for your great great grandparents and will be there for your great great grand children Suzette keith, Barnet, London
Vassili, I totally agree with you! At last a tree lover who feels the same way. In fact lots of people feel this way, but we don’t have much of a voice. Croydon is losing trees very fast, due to reasons you cite, plus urban vandalism. I also support IFAW. Best of luck to you. Susan Betts, Croydon, Greater London
I agree with your writer. Trees do far more good than harm and we have a collective responsibility to conserve them. Life and the world around us would be a lot more unpleasant with trees. keith barrett, london
I absolutely agree with Vassili - trees are an essential part of any city. One thing he failed to mention is the impact that they have on other aspects of the weather; living in such a wet and windy city as Edinburgh, it is striking how much worse the treeless areas are in high winds and heavy rain. Adrian Miller, Edinburgh, Scotland
Chopping down a tree in an urban street can cause much more subsidence because it is no longer absorbing water, that water now goes to swell the subsoil causing ground heave and increases the flooding risk in the area. jon, Leics
UK people seem keen to pay more in order to move to a ‘leafy’ area and then promptly concrete over the gardens in the name of convenience! mind you, when they try and sell the house they do buy a small pot to provide ‘kerb appeal’…but then forget to water it. johanna booth , liverpool,uk

Hello World!

admin — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 17:02:28 +0000

Finally Bristol Street Trees has an interactive blog. Here, you can comment on our website and and lets us know what you think about our news items.