Tree Removal for Development

[armybloke]

Do you think we do enough to halt the removal of trees for development sites? Over a period of 8 months I catalogued the trees and groups of trees I inspected and then (in agreement with the LPA) the trees and groups removed to facilitate the development. This table does not reflect those trees I inspected in total merely those projects that I have followed up with Method Statements and supervision whereby I can make a true tally of the trees and groups retained on a site.

 

You will see from the table that almost 40% of all trees inspected have been lost and exactly 35% of all groups inspected removed. The group element could range from 3 to 50 trees depending on the size of the site. Normally categorised as shelterbelt, woodland or copse within a report I have made it easier to keep a spreadsheet of data.

 

It upsets me to allow so many trees to be felled for the sake of a build but I look around me and we are running out of usable space.

 

I have been fortunate to be able to travel to India recently and therefore can use this experience as an analogy of how 'we' may value a tree. in contrast and despite housing and population densities there being the highest in the world it is far greener than UK. I talk of the towns and cities where there is a tree in front of every shop and on every street corner and not the tropical jungles and backwaters. They need them for shade but by comparison we need them for pollution, hydrology, humidity and temperature control. Unlike the UK nothing is wasted there too. From bamboo being used for building materials to washing a plate with an abrasive bark, I noticed that the people of India understood the value of a tree perhaps better than we do. Many 'people' take them for granted - until it is gone!

 

Felling, pruning and management of trees is a livelihood for many of the readers in this Forum but are we being over zealous in our quest to make a living? I hope I manage to do what I can for the next generation of planet occupants but as I travel the 'bazaars' of UK it seems that money is the root of most evil. Can we do more?

 

Just a thought...........

Tree removal table.docx

[Paul Barton]

That's why I don't really like doing development site surveys. You can only kid yourself that you're doing good for the urban forest for so long.

[armybloke]

I agree with you in part Paul but if I did not try to do 'my bit' I would feel a little guilty that I wasn't trying at all. Bit like recycling, I feel like I am wasting my time when I see landfill full of recyclable items but I don't want to feel I added towards it.

[Paul Barton]

Of course. It's a job that needs doing by arbs with integrity.

 

I'm just trying to diversify to more satisfying areas of work.

[daltontrees]

If the poplace doesn't express a strong interest in keeping trees, then neither the legislation nor the Council decisions abut tree retention wlll change. I don't feel bad about doing BS5837 surveys, if anything I do all I can to be objective rather than try and play any games to redress the balance. That has only ever seemed like trying to slow down a speeding bus by sticking your arms out the window. All you do is draw attention to yourself or get your arms ripped off.

The point is the laws are there already (if a little weak) but there is no will to do anything much meaningful with them.

We're all going to hell in a hand cart anyway...

[armybloke]

You make a good point Jules. The law is there, albeit a little trimmed down, but the other issue is that no one is readily available to police it or enforce it beyond the 'please don't do that again' syndrome (exceptions to every rule as I do know a few TOs that you would not want to bet against!). LPAs have no resources or finances left to oversee what they must (do) feel is a hole they won't plug. I have many TO friends who go to work every day and are told to save money - and if that means not reviewing or auditing a development site then the loss of canopy cover is inevitable (in my opinion).

[slack ma girdle]

Fell them now or later. If later there is only going to be complaints about loss of light and leaves, so felled anyway.

B.S.5837 is only valid until the building regs are signed off, after that you can do what you want unless T.P.O regs are in force.

 

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Arbtalk mobile app

[daltontrees]

Fell them now or later. If later there is only going to be complaints about loss of light and leaves, so felled anyway.

B.S.5837 is only valid until the building regs are signed off, after that you can do what you want unless T.P.O regs are in force.

 

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Arbtalk mobile app

Blimey, and I thought I was being pessimistic...

[slack ma girdle]

Blimey, and I thought I was being pessimistic...

 

It makes me sad that i put out alot of effort into keeping trees on development sites, creating working comprimises, knowing that most will be gone within a year of the project being competed.

 

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Arbtalk mobile app

[sean]

The thing that gets my goat is that once planning has been given and permission to remove trees has been given on the premise that replacements will be planted elsewhere on the site there is no legislation with regards the AFTER CARE of those trees. Look at all the supermarkets. How many trees were lost in the development of those. Yes they have planted trees throughout the site but the after care has been nearly non existent with many trees dying or dead. Its a joke.