The barsteward.

[skyhuck]

For me VERY old trees, trees that are hundreds of years old are fairly rare, the ones that are over 500 years old are very rare and IMO should be protected with the full force of the law and I would make it law that trees of this sort DON'T belong to the land owner but are national treasures and I would have them maintained out of the public purse.

 

As for trees such as this Maple, if I lived there I would prefer the river view and if I owned the tree and the council stopped me felling it I'd be more than a little miffed.

Edited September 12, 2009 by skyhuck

[PeteB]

The "fell to view" issue is debatable in its merits. However, what galls me is that some pretentious buffon with aspirations to have a river view has purposely killed off an otherwise harmless tree because he did not get his own way.

 

Was he a spoilt child or is he rebelling because he was not breast fed as a baby?

 

The LA ought to demand that all of the residents of the site pay for some semi mature Tilia Euchlora be planted around the edges of the car park. That way the green issues of the site are dealt with and the spoilt, selfish vandals have an ongoing problem with the Lime tree goo all over their cars! Yet they still have their precious river view, then I would invite the EA to park their barges and kit in front of the flats along with some of the abandoned, half sunk boats that can be found on our waterways. Or am I being petty?

Edited September 12, 2009 by PeteB

[Stephen Blair]

not at all pete, sounds good to me.

[felixthelogchopper]

The "fell to view" issue is debatable in its merits. However, what galls me is that some pretentious buffon with aspirations to have a river view has purposely killed off an otherwise harmless tree because he did not get his own way.

 

Was he a spoilt child or is he rebelling because he was not breast fed as a baby?

 

The LA ought to demand that all of the residents of the site pay for some semi mature Tilia Euchlora be planted around the edges of the car park. That way the green issues of the site are dealt with and the spoilt, selfish vandals have an ongoing problem with the Lime tree goo all over their cars! Yet they still have their precious river view, then I would invite the EA to park their barges and kit in front of the flats along with some of the abandoned, half sunk boats that can be found on our waterways. Or am I being petty?

Did he not notice the tree when he bought the place?

Spot on with the Limes

[Dean Lofthouse]

For me VERY old trees, trees that are hundreds of years old are fairly rare, the ones that are over 500 years old are very rare and IMO should be protected with the full force of the law and I would make it law that trees of this sort DON'T belong to the land owner but are national treasures and I would have them maintained out of the public purse.

 

As for trees such as this Maple, if I lived there I would prefer the river view and if I owned the tree and the council stopped me felling it I'd be more than a little miffed.

 

Problem there is, Ancient trees were once young and small, so if we dont look after and protect a proportion of the younger trees we wont have any ancient trees in the future

[skyhuck]

Problem there is, Ancient trees were once young and small, so if we dont look after and protect a proportion of the younger trees we wont have any ancient trees in the future

 

I was waiting for this one

 

I don't think there is much chance of an "unwanted" tree living to a good age, its also in the grounds of a modern building which will have a fairly limited life, so in the not too distant future the site will no doubt be redeveloped.

 

So IMO that tree is not a candidate for becoming a veteran, maybe I'm wrong.

 

But I would concentrate on protecting loved trees in good locations.

 

[Nimby]

I am being stupid here! Why was this tree felled?

 

I have seen a few Norway Maples ringbarked and very few of them actually died. It should only of been felled if it had died.

 

Do you know if the LA are investigating the case? Ring the TO or the Legal Dept and ask if it is being looked into.

[Amelanchier]

I was waiting for this one

 

I don't think there is much chance of an "unwanted" tree living to a good age, its also in the grounds of a modern building which will have a fairly limited life, so in the not too distant future the site will no doubt be redeveloped.

 

So IMO that tree is not a candidate for becoming a veteran, maybe I'm wrong.

 

But I would concentrate on protecting loved trees in good locations.

 

 

Lets suppose an Oak in a reasonable garden spot might have a Safe Useful Life Expectancy (SULE) of 120 years (a conservative estimate). Given that, on average, people move house 3-4 times per lifetime (owning a property for roughly 15-20 years), our tree might have 6-8 owners over its SULE. If you consider that say 75% of those owners will have a partner thats about 10-14 people involved in its fate.

 

You only need one owner (or their partner) to take a dislike to it for it to be felled before it reaches veteran/final maturity your standards...

 

Also, are you suggesting that the only good trees are old trees?