Appeal on tpo decision

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

I was mainly commenting on Gray git's comment just above.

 

Speaking on a more macro scale, even the consideration to fell such old trees because of light issues is, to me, poor form. I don't understand the disparity between needs and wants (in favour of wants) - what we need long-term is good health as supported by functional ecosystems, whilst what we want short-term are temporary pleasures that are driven by self-centred (anthropocentric) desires.

 

It strikes me as antithetical when we realise we need to retain our green structures, yet proceed to remove them for reasons that are whimsical at best.

 

Not wishing to declare either for or against just yet, (not that it would make any difference of course) and purely to play devil's advocate, do you know either the tree, the circumstances and/or the people described in this brief scenario?

 

The reason I ask is that without more detailed knowledge than has been relayed in the thread so far, I'd find it a bit of a stretch to classify the situation as picked out in red above.

 

There are 2 reasons for my reticence, firstly the "amenity value" tools available to us take no account of the imagined or actual emotional, physiological or psychological impact upon the person(s) who feels the need the remove or reduce tree(s) that impact upon them. And second, how can "we" who are unaffected by a tree make a qualified judgement of the effect (either imagined or real) on the person claiming to be adversely affected?

 

Reasons for disallowing work to TPO trees is often cited as "amenity value" but I've yet to really find these elusive individuals that derive such pleasure from other peoples' trees. There are quite often those habitual complainers who like to barrack the parish council and often have more to say about other peoples' business than they would probably like other people to have say about their own. I have (quite often) found people that have genuine, real and measurable example of hazard from example tree(s) who are required to suffer-on due to "amenity value."

 

I agree that the macro ideal would be a more densely populated urban (and rural) forrest, but macro ideals have micro impacts and I don't believe the cause is best advanced by over use of the catch-all "amenity value" or that phrase popular with some members - which came first, the house or the tree.

 

Hopefully we'll hear more as the scenario develops.....

 

[Kveldssanger]

Not wishing to declare either for or against just yet, (not that it would make any difference of course) and purely to play devil's advocate, do you know either the tree, the circumstances and/or the people described in this brief scenario?

 

The reason I ask is that without more detailed knowledge than has been relayed in the thread so far, I'd find it a bit of a stretch to classify the situation as picked out in red above.

 

There are 2 reasons for my reticence, firstly the "amenity value" tools available to us take no account of the imagined or actual emotional, physiological or psychological impact upon the person(s) who feels the need the remove or reduce tree(s) that impact upon them. And second, how can "we" who are unaffected by a tree make a qualified judgement of the effect (either imagined or real) on the person claiming to be adversely affected?

 

Reasons for disallowing work to TPO trees is often cited as "amenity value" but I've yet to really find these elusive individuals that derive such pleasure from other peoples' trees. There are quite often those habitual complainers who like to barrack the parish council and often have more to say about other peoples' business than they would probably like other people to have say about their own. I have (quite often) found people that have genuine, real and measurable example of hazard from example tree(s) who are required to suffer-on due to "amenity value."

 

I agree that the macro ideal would be a more densely populated urban (and rural) forrest, but macro ideals have micro impacts and I don't believe the cause is best advanced by over use of the catch-all "amenity value" or that phrase popular with some members - which came first, the house or the tree.

 

Hopefully we'll hear more as the scenario develops.....

 

 

Of course my musings are based rather generally, as I am not familiar with this case.

 

Absolutely it can be considered insensitive (or otherwise) to disregard the psychological 'distress' caused by a tree that is casting shade, as can it even be considered wrong to impose a judgement when existing completely outside of such succumbed emotion (caused by the tree to the resident). I would still, for the most part, fall back onto the premise that the end game should be to protect nature wherever possible however. If we lead ourselves through life seeking only what we want in order to make our individual lives better / easier / nicer, there is only one true end and it's not a pretty one. There must come a point where the paradigm changes and we move into a future where we actually (and by that I mean properly) respect nature - not just when it suits us to do so.

 

Anyway, I'll keep an eye on this one.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Of course my musings are based rather generally, as I am not familiar with this case.

 

 

 

Absolutely it can be considered insensitive (or otherwise) to disregard the psychological 'distress' caused by a tree that is casting shade, as can it even be considered wrong to impose a judgement when existing completely outside of such succumbed emotion (caused by the tree to the resident). I would still, for the most part, fall back onto the premise that the end game should be to protect nature wherever possible however. If we lead ourselves through life seeking only what we want in order to make our individual lives better / easier / nicer, there is only one true end and it's not a pretty one. There must come a point where the paradigm changes and we move into a future where we actually (and by that I mean properly) respect nature - not just when it suits us to do so.

 

 

 

Anyway, I'll keep an eye on this one.

 

 

Don't hold your breath waiting for the enlightenment!

 

Mrs Migging's husband has busted his ball sack for 50 years to provide that postage stamp of grass.... Even Swampy would have his work cut out trying to convince her "shade tolerant grass" is an acceptable alternative....