Total posts 10
Total comments 12
// March 10th, 2008
- 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
“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?” has 3 Responses
On March 11th, 2008 Clive Stevens said:
Relating to Matt’s (from Essex) comment: It is good, Matt as a council arboriculturist, you have opened the case for the “other side” and I’d imagine that most of the detail of what you say is true regarding the Acts of Parliament, expense of regular maintenance, insurance claims on councils (but the comment he makes about moving the bench and people still sitting under a tree still being a risk to the council is not valid as long as you properly signpost any risk - see Tomlinson v Congleton 2003).
Where I take real issue with your comment is in the last few lines. You talk about the Victorian legacy of street trees being out of date and the fact the country has moved on and so has modern urban design.
It is evident that planners, architects and arboriculturists and your ilk are being trained, even indoctrinated, in this “new urban appropriateness” you refer to. Lots of concrete, glass, water and a few trees where pressurised. Who is saying that this is what we, the inhabitants, want ? And what about the other creatures that have a right to this planet or are cities to become wildlife ghettos except for rats and pigeons ? Big trees bring a lot of pleasure to people as well as obviating some of the effects of all that concrete. You can tell your “new appropriateness” is at odds with many people’s views because when councils are forced to undertake public consultation the feedback tells them that. And so do most of the comments on this web site. So Matt, we didn’t elect you, we didn’t elect the urban planners or their teachers. Who gives you / them the right to make such massive and unwelcome change ?
This new urban environment might be progress but progress towards what ?
On March 13th, 2008 Daisy Tree said:
Well done Matt, it is clear that the writer of this article has not attempted to design and implement sustainable tree-pits within an urban environment this is near impossible to do, given just some of the following;
· Drop curbs
· Underground utilities
· CCTV
· Street Lights
· Overhead services
· Disability Discrimination Act 1995, footways should have 2 meter clearance
· Suitable clearance from the roadway, to ensure that the tree is not hit be wing mirror of high or wide loads, bus etc.
· Visabiltiy sightlines
· Close proximity to adjoining properties
· The stock that the nursery trade can supply
· The effects of road salt upon available species
· Change in management regime i.e. no longer pollarding trees
· Changing climate
· Changing budget
There are many factors to consider when choosing the right tree in the right place, however it comes back to the tree budget and that requires a long term commitment of 50 years plus. However, Councils set an annual budget and priorities change every four years.
The councillors pay lip service to trees at election time but they do not provide the budget when it is needed!
Furthermore, no one elected us TO’s (Tree Officers), but the good TO’s have invested a considerable amount of time and money at college, university and continuing profession development. To WORK within a profession (arboriculture) that we love and enjoy, this means managing conflicting demands between tree huggers, tree haters (they are out waiting for the leaves to grow on the trees to complain about the lost of light because, no TV reception, leaves in my gutter, aphid waste on my car, get rid of the tree to stop the bird perching it given the bird song wakes me up on my days off, etc. etc.) and our limited budgets.
Those that can do, those that can’t preach!
On August 11th, 2008 dryad said:
The problem in Bristol is the high handed and cavalier attitude of the tree officers, who always seem to presume in favour of felling, without much consideration of other options. If a developer’s access is compromised by trees, there doesn’t seem to be a presumption in favour of the tree’s preservation ,just cut it down and either don’t replace it, or put in a couple of lollipops. It should be mentioned that there are no “natural” urban trees. The urban environment is wholly UNnatural. Tree officers have a duty to do everything in their power to preserve existing trees, replace any that can’t be managed in any way but felling, and take their responsibilities seriously vis a vis the people who pay their wages, not just the rich developers/property owners.
The London Tree Officers Association seem to have an entirely different approach, actually attaching some value to the trees they are responsible, regarding them as assets and not liabilities.