Retaining trees in (damaged) hard surfaces

[tree77]

What about using an alternative material rather than tarmac.

Flexi pave works well, although cost more, still cheaper in the long run 

Edited January 25, 2022 by tree77

[JaySmith]

What about using an alternative material rather than tarmac.
Flexi pave works well, although cost more, still cheaper in the long run 

I made reference to Flex in a previous post and have seen some good results. Looked at some London Plane’s last year, one had better vigour, less small deadwood and I would say healthier overall leaf coverage compared to the other one that had been repeatedly patched with tarmac. For clarity both were obviously the same species, similar in age if not the same and located upon the same suburban residential street. I’m going to return in the Summer so I’ll get some pics for reference. Overall if a tarmac patch is replaced twice or three times in five years (not inconceivable in the urban environment ) then the cost of the Flexi pave becomes attractive overall, not to mention the potential health benefits and long term viability of the tree.

[arbgirl92]

On 25/01/2022 at 17:28, JaySmith said:

Yes for public highway, the OP was saying that she doesn’t have any budget for planting. Compensation/mitigation for removal may provide funds for planting is what I was getting at

I've literally only just checked the replies on this thread so sorry for the late response!

 

We wouldnt be able to seek compensation for removal as it would be removal required by us, not Highways or LA (the hard surfacing i refer to belongs to us - we're a housing association but we own the majority of the town, not the LA). Highways roads I've never been approached about in regards to the trees although would be interesting to know if we could claim compensation where it would be required...

[arbgirl92]

On 25/01/2022 at 10:36, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Can you tell us which town this is? I wonder if it is the one I’m thinking of - if so (and I think probably not) there shouldn’t be a problem resolving this. (That’s why I think it probably isn’t the town I’m thinking of.)

 

Take the tarmac away, make it look like a open soil area and maybe the dog shite will discourage casual pedestrians?

 

Its a non-sense to seek to make all areas flat, smooth and accessible. 
 

There are many areas of great historic, cultural and aesthetic value (certainly in Cornwall) which are distinctly non-compliant with current disability and accessibility legislation - long may it remain so!

Sorry for the late response, only just checked the thread!!

 

The town is Thamesmead, south-east london

 

My first suggestion is always to remove the tarmac where its not actually required, which i think management are slowly starting to listen to me on the subject... but of course they're still (understandably) concerned about the liability.

 

I have asked them to look into Flexi Pave, and hoping it is a route they will go down, but 99.9% sure the cost will make it a big fat no 😞 

[JaySmith]

Flexi pace can be expensive in the first instance. However when you are re patching the same area on a regular basis there becomes a point where engineering solutions such as flexi pave work out more cost effective long term. It’s just the upfront cost that is often seen as a negative.

[maven]

On 24/01/2022 at 12:47, arbgirl92 said:

I have suggested removing the tarmac (it is completely unnecessary anyway) to discourage people from walking on it. But the raised tree roots will still be there and still be a potential trip hazard.

I know nothing about tree law, but I did have a fall over a loose flagstone in a paved area of a town and learn that if it is not in an area demarcated as pavement, then - even when it is clear that pedestrians will walk there, and the surface is in bad condition and there are significant trip hazards - pedestrians who trip have a much harder job to make a case for a claim. If you were able to get rid of the tarmac and put down chipped bark so it looks like an area that bulbs might be planted under the trees, then this would give a visual cue that a pedestrian shouldn't walk there, and my experience suggests that if they did they would probably be considered to do so at their own risk.