Removing trees to restore views

[Gary Prentice]

Do try to keep up David, this is the new ' big stack of firewood' Gish Logging from Brad Kipe on Vimeo

[Mike Hill]

I can understand this.They want to restore the veiws to what was original and the Trees are not.Much like removing a 1960´s "tack-on" to the wing of a Stately Home.

[David Humphries]

Why only the copper beech? None of the group appear to be included in the original planting. .

 

Quite correct.

I'm not sure about the plan for other trees in the group, which I think are sweet chestnut & oak.

 

also if you look at the google aerial shot (unknown date) it shows a clear band of vegetation in front of the dairy cottege, where as this is now completely gone.

 

so some work appears to have been carried out already.

 

 

.

[David Humphries]

Remove trees for views.

 

Felling the Giant Redwoods at Ashton Court - a set on Flickr

 

I didn't remember this one.

 

was there a huge clamour at the time against the decision to remove them Mr Scale?

 

 

 

.

[David Humphries]

I can understand this.They want to restore the veiws to what was original and the Trees are not.Much like removing a 1960´s "tack-on" to the wing of a Stately Home.

 

They (the site management) have a good case for this I feel, but to be honest I don't really have an opinion either way with these three specific trees.

 

I beleive their collective loss to this imeadiate landscape would not have a huge impact on the aesthetics or the local ecology particularly over a reasonably short to mid term time span.

 

Personally if I had any sort of part in the decision making process here I would make a compromise and take out two of them leaving just one which would have less of an impact on the aesthetics of the situation (i think that this may have been the intention with the planting of a group of three in the first place, and possibly got forgotten about.

 

 

.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Would the view that is proposed to be restored:

 

a) be the same as the original view in the era that the garden was designed? Even without knowing the site, the answer has to be "no" for so many obvious reasons.

 

b) be considered of such great "value/worth" that it supersedes the 'amenity value' of the trees and warrants their removal? How could that be quantified?

 

Following the thread about methods / validity of determining amenity value of trees and the difficulty and contradictions that throws up (depending upon your opinion of "worth / nuisance" of a given tree) how on earth could a valid submission on the "amenity value" of a view be compiled??

 

Irony:

 

If you were to propose tree removal for construction you're likely to be buried in TPOs.

 

Maybe "restoring view" is the way ahead??

[Mike Hill]

Would the view that is proposed to be restored:

 

a) be the same as the original view in the era that the garden was designed? Even without knowing the site, the answer has to be "no" for so many obvious reasons.

 

b) be considered of such great "value/worth" that it supersedes the 'amenity value' of the trees and warrants their removal? How could that be quantified?

 

Following the thread about methods / validity of determining amenity value of trees and the difficulty and contradictions that throws up (depending upon your opinion of "worth / nuisance" of a given tree) how on earth could a valid submission on the "amenity value" of a view be compiled??

 

Irony:

 

 

If you were to propose tree removal for construction you're likely to be buried in TPOs.

 

Maybe "restoring view" is the way ahead??

 

These Trees are in a Park However.Also Copper Beech is such a striking Tree that it is unlikely to be planted in a group.Typically they are single feature Trees.I beleive that the "amenity value" of these Trees is insignificant in relation to the intends of the Parks managers.David brings up the idea that these three were planted in order to hedge their bets.

[Andy Collins]

I've always struggled to get this through my skull, even though I've done "vista restoration" at several notable sites, including Flatford Mill. Such views are considered part of the "conservation area" as the trees that would normally be protected. But the argument is that (in the case of Flatford) the trees would not have been there, or if painted in would have been there through artistic licence. My own opinion is that a whole established habitat should not really be destroyed in the name of art, or what would have been in place a couple of hundred years ago. Time and nature moves on, it is fluid not static.

[Mark Bolam]

I would want a very good look at what the 'view' would be anywhere before removing any tree, especially a copper beech.

 

Maybe I'm just a weirdo who likes looking at trees.

[High Scale]

I didn't remember this one.

 

was there a huge clamour at the time against the decision to remove them Mr Scale?

 

 

 

.

 

I recall that there was some kind of kerfuffle, I believe the felling was on the cards for years but nobody local wanted to do it.