Do we own our trees

[Dean Lofthouse]

Not so much do we own, but should we be allowed to......

 

Say someone moves into a house that has a perfectly healthy 300 year old Oak and decided before they move in that they like the house but not the tree and have bought the house with the intention of felling the tree.

 

I have come across this quite a lot, sometimes they dont realise the point of a TPO and think they can get round it if is does have a tpo on.

 

My point is, bearing in mind WE dont own our land the Queen does and that we only hold TITLE to our land, should we be able to fell a mature 300 year old oak because we dont like it.

 

The Oak has gone all those years with responsible owner looking after it then, for example, you get some city twerp coming along and getting rid in the blink of an eye

 

The reason I am writing this is because I know of just such a tree which does have a tpo on it, there has been a house built near it some 50 years ago, the house has been up for sale many times and each new owner has tried to have the tree cut down.

 

I have worked on the tree and looked after it, I know the last owner of the house, (who inherited it because his father died and couldn't get a decent price for it because of the tree) appealed vigorously and it was Mr Ed's dad that came and assessed the tree and passed it as very healthy.

 

This is one example of..IMO the totally wrong reason or selfish reasoning for felling ancient native trees... for money in other words.

 

But there are many examples out there of trees with no tpos or no protection against such as this case.

 

I know it was argued a while ago about wether or not WE as tree orientated people should put TPOs on trees where we feel justified, I have never done it yet but felt compelled to do so the other day when I mentioned to a chap it was not in his best interest or that of his 16 neighbours to mutilate 45 trees for no other reason than, and get this, he thought they were dangerous and we are talking 40ft silver birch and cherry. Not because he and the neighbour wanted light or the leaves blew in his garden. The trees were not protected but these trees as a short lived species

 

I explained to hi I didn't have a problem felling the trees and replacing with smaller trees but if he felt the trees were danger now, then topping them would make them a degree more dangerous in future.

 

Could there be an independant advisory body that people had to go to when making decisions of this kind or should the decision be taken by everyone because it's in all our interests to "save the world" or just leave things as they are

[TimberCutterDartmoor]

Veteran trees such as the one/s you describe should imo be given the respect they deserve and have a serious level of protection based on their heritage, unless of course ddd applies. A Texaco garage near me recently closed to make way for a housing development; 2 Quercus Robur in the plot; one probably 200 ish and the other well over 300 years old. Both felled, sawn up and now being buried by excavator in a hole in the ground

 

I'd like to see much stricter and clear guidelines re trees that come with a property in the deeds of the same - you want the house? Then you obey the caveats...

Edited November 8, 2009 by TimberCutterDartmoor

[johnty]

All valid points guys, and i totally agree with this thread, old trees were there before the houses were built, and we were all alive, if you dont like the tree then dont build a house their.

[josharb87]

isnt this what tpo's and tree officers are for? protecting our valuable trees?

 

perhaps, there could be a scheme to add to the tree officers workload-where trees with tpo's are then categorised into 3 levels depending on the trees value-the lowest level needing only one tree officer/consultants permission, the highest needing 3 independant tree officers/consultants permission for works to be carried out

 

but then thats more red tape!

[Mesterh]

I would like to see more effort and money being spent on street,park and garden trees tbh.

 

But yes that what tpo's are for and yes the owner of the property should be the owner of the tree, if not who would own it? Or more importantly who is responsible for it.

[Rupe]

I agree with Dean. If you buy a house with a significant tree then you should look after it in the same way you would look after the house for the duration of your ownership.

 

In some case the tree(s) will actaully add to the value of the property, if providing shade/privacy as long as it doesn't cause damage/obstruction. I have often explained to people that cheap tree work can cost £££'s in devalueing the property. Often I am explaing this to people who have nice cars and will happily pay servicing costs even though the car is depreciating in value quicker than enything else they will ever own, wheras good tree care will increas ethe value of the trees/property.

 

My biggest gripe is with poeple wanting to remove trees due to the leaf drop which makes them have to do something on a saturday!!! They will wash the car and walk the dog but not pick up after the tree!! Muppets.

 

Morgtgage company surveyors are the worst though, any cracks in a wall and the nearest tree must be removed prior to purchase. That saves them the effort of investigating the structural quality of the building - blame it on the tree, tick the box and go home early!!

[nepia]

I'd like to see the law amended so that damage to TPOd trees on private land is the automatic responsibility of the land's owner and for him to rebut if he isn't the guilty party.

There was a fine example recently where such a situation would have allowed prosecution of an owner if not preservation of the tree (not ideal but better than nothing): that twonk whose river view of the Thames was being spoilt, complained about it, was refused permission to touch the tree and then lo and behold someone came along and ringbarked it in the middle of the night. 'I know nothing guv' wouldn't have helped him if the onus had been on him to show he wasn't responsible for the damage.

The problem here would be the legal lobby; it would be seen as an attack on the general principle of 'innocent till proven guilty' but it wouldn't be the first time that such law had been written.

[Ian C]

Nah....... Fell the lot and get some good firewood for god sake.

[bob]

i own the trees in my garden

but hope someone else will own them and appreciate them when i sell them

weather as logs or bowls or trees when i have sold up or died:thumbup:

[paradise]

How about automatic TPOs on any tree over, say, 1m DBH (excluding pops and willows perhaps) and within 100m of a building (woodland/rural trees should not be covered in general as FC deals with this). You could do it by age but most people have no clue about the age of a tree so the DBH would be better for a rule-of-thumb I think.