All posts in the topic Trees in Bury Knowle Park (Short link)
Summary
- There are 22 posts — by 10 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Stephanie Jenkins at Jul 29 10:03 UTC
| From | File | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Stephanie Jenkins | tree near library.jpg | Jul 13 07:24 UTC |
Chris Brewer had a reply from a city council officer about the felled trees in
Headington Hill Park stating: "Only trees that are dead, dying, diseased or
dangerous and pose an unacceptable risk to the users of the park are being
removed".
Seventeen trees are also due to be felled in Bury Knowle Park later this month,
and you can judge for yourselves whether they fit those criteria, as each one
is identified with a red cross on its trunk. Do you feel threatened when you
walk past the handsome but doomed tree in the attached photograph, for
instance?
I know that trees can be dangerous, but Bury Knowle Park and Headington Hill
Park are always closed these days when there is a gale warning. I don't know
how the city council "tests" a sturdy-looking old tree for safety, but I am
beginning to suspect it is cheaper and easier to get rid of a tree altogether
than regularly to lop off large and unstable boughs.
(The trunks of the felled trees in Headington Hill Park must be solid enough,
otherwise Nanny Health & Safety would not allow the audience to sit on them
during plays....)
The following file was added to this topic:
I had a walk around the park this evening. Here are my snaps - http://www.flickr.com/photos/23405400@N03/sets/72157606146033416/ The photos after each red cross photo are of the same tree. I must say I don't understand. Most of these these trees look very healthy, and some are magnificent specimens.
Also remember I am convinced that the most important tree so far
removed in Headington Hill Park never did have an "X" on it anyway.
It may have been on a map, and let's face it the "Xs" were not to
give us proles any advance notice but to inform the hatchet-wielders,
but apart from a short message on the fence in the week the felling
began, there was no other public advance notice.
I reckon it must be worth asking for a moratorium on felling (in all
parks?) until a report has been seen (at an area committee perhaps?)
and people who want to have been able to find out why any they are
interesting in are being proposed for felling.
And some kind of an idea of what they define as being a risk.
My views on tree-felling are well-known. I was accused of being a tree-hugger
on this forum some time ago when I suggested that too many healthy trees are
being cut down in Headington for no reason. Well, they are, aren't they?
What we need is for more people to join this forum and add their voices of
protest to the inadequate number who have so far expressed concern over this
issue.
A cursory glance at the City Council Planning Matters website shows that each
month, large mature tres continue to be cut down for no reason. On 24th June
the Tree officer gave permission to fell a handsome mature copper beech at 14,
St Andrews Lane, seeing "no objection". On 4th July permission was given to cut
down three cherry trees and an apple tree at 198, Iffley Road - again, no
objection raised.
Even if any replacements were being planted, the trees could not reach maturity
fast enough to compensate for this policy of destruction. Unfortunately people
see the surge in world food prices as a completely unrelated issue, and as for
all our talk of carbon reduction, that is just Labour/Libdem "greenwash".
I accept, from your previous message about UKIP's planning policies, that UKIP have scant regard for private property anyway (which surprised me - I thought they were trying to position themselves as libertarians), so I can understand why you might think planning and tree officers might, or ought to, have more powers than they really do with regard to private property. Decisions about the risk levels of trees in council ownership are an entirely different matter, however. Nobody here, so far as I know, knows whether or not these park trees are in fact safe other than that we must assume they breach the risk management policies of the council or of the council's insurers more likely. We haven't had the benefit of seeing the reports that one gets to see on planning applications or the risk criteria against which they are being measured. What we are questioning is whether that risk profile is too risk averse and they are making decisions about trees that will last further decades based on extraordinary events like last year's storms (which, need we be reminded, did fell one of the very tall, very alive tree in Headington Hill Hall grounds and others elsewhere). Though there was another article yesterday on the tree "valuation" scheme going on in Surrey - they have put a value tag of half a million on a three hundred year oak, which seems to be an interesting way of monetising their value so they can be compared to the financial or otherwise benefits of development: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/england/london/7506610.stm To suggest that there is a "policy of destruction", and that that is somehow politically motivated by any of the parties at the Town Hall, however, is really just your UKIP hogwash though!
The example Julia gave for 14, St. Andrews Lane is in the Old Headington Conservation Area. As I quoted on the Headington Hill Park thread - ''All trees in Conservation Areas are protected if they have a stem diameter of 75 millimetres measured at 1.5 metres from ground level.' So I would have thought that the copper beech she mentioned is protected. But what does that mean in practice? It looks like it means it is protected until the City Council Tree Officer agrees it can be cut down. What would be really useful would be for the City Council to put their recently written Tree Policy up on their web site. This page - http://www.oxford.gov.uk/news/news.cfm/container/496/pagenum/4/item/2589 is out of date.
I never wrote that the destruction was politically motivated, and none of my
comments on tree policy have got anything to do with UKIP so Jock owes them an
apology. It seems he is in the habit of abusing them without bothering to find
out what they say or stand for. It is Libdem hogwash to criticize the closure
of local post offices while voting for the EU control that is demanding and
imposing it.*
The fact is that this destruction of trees IS taking place, and since the City
council is dominated by Labour and Libdems, it is merely LOGICAL to put the
blame on them. After all, if you drive a bus, you are to blame for it going
over a cliff.
Chris is quite correct when he says that protected status means merely that
council permission is required to cut the trees down. And in most cases that
permission is quickly and easily given.
One of the City Tree Officers has agreed to meet me in Bury Knowle Park next
Tuesday afternoon between 2pm and 3pm to point out the trees and say shy they
are dangerous. I have challenged him to show me the evidence from their
independent expert proving these trees pose an "unacceptable threat". I admit I
am pretty sceptical about the claim that they do. Anybody else who wants to
turn up there is welcome as far as I am concerned.
*I have a number of well-written leaflets with the evidence on this, produced
by UKIP South-East. Actually UKIP was also the first party to point out the
negative impact of the EU's bio-fuels policy.
Not necessarily, mechanical faliure could also be to blame for a bus going off
a cliff !!!!!! A blown tyre maybe?, unstable road's or falling rocks ?, high
winds ?.................
I don't feel any need to apologise, especially to a political party,
one of the vocal advocates of which seems to do as much as possible
to blame other political parties, officers, almost anyone, for
everything as if everyone is in some malicious conspiracy on every
issue.
You're just wrong on POs, however well written the lovely leaflets,
because you have not grasped the relatively simple idea that the PO
network is different from the mail and delivery system, could exist
quite independently, and indeed I suggest would thrive freed from the
fetters of the sub-postmaster franchised system that keeps costs
artificially high and prevents POs properly competing for other sorts
of business from Royal Mail competitors. And UKIP's planning
proposals *are* clearly an attack on private property, which, for a
party trying to position itself as libertarian seems a little odd to
say the least. In fact, it's just as much populist as any other
party, there's no moral high ground can be claimed by the UKIP.
However, as I pointed out, despite your introducing it, policy or
guidance relating to planning applications has nothing, nada, to do
with the issue of this thread, which is about the management of trees
for which the City Council has a responsibility and potential
liability. And so, since you clearly have that in hand, I'll cease
from this thread now. Good luck with Bury Knowle, I see they've even
now felled that giant and quite interesting stump of that chestnut in
Headington Hill Park today. Buggers!
...and VERY good luck to the City Tree Officer!
I think Julia deserves praise for having arranged this visit by a Tree
Officer.
I have checked with her, and the arrangement on Tuesday if you want to
hear what he has to say is to meet outside the library in Bury Knowle
Park at 2pm. I happen to be taking next week off work, and so will be
there.
Please can we leave the subject alone until it is possible to report
back next week? It has become so political that it's hard to realize
any more that Julia and Jock are on the same side -- that of the
trees.
I think Jock's message is rude and aggressive and the language he uses is no
credit to the Libdems.
I don't belong to any party but I think it's shame that so many trees have to
be cut down. I can't go to the park at that time but I wish good luck to the
trees, not the tree officer.
Let's keep off politics generally as much as we can: this forum should stick
together on the side of Headington and Marston and their local facilities.
I imagine that what Lindsey is implying when she wishes the hapless tree
officer luck is that he is expecting to meet with tree-loving Hamadryads on
Tuesday, when in fact he is going to be faced with a group of Maenads who might
tear him apart. I don't think she meant that she hoped he would win his case
(unless the trees really are lethal).
I have not been following this but anyone who votes for cutting down trees lovely or ugly is unspeakable in my book. Ben Ben BeaumontFRICS, FCIArb, BarristerMember of Dispute Resolution Board Foundation Chair www.ficacic.com44 1865 75195044 7790 946567> To: <email obscured>> From: <email obscured>> Subject: Re: [HMNF] Trees in Bury Knowle Park> Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:33:16 +1200> > I think Jock's message is rude and aggressive and the language he uses is no credit to the Libdems. > I don't belong to any party but I think it's shame that so many trees have to be cut down. I can't go to the park at that time but I wish good luck to the trees, not the tree officer.> > > Kim Sung> > Info about Kim Sung: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/mandalay7620> > This topic's messages may be viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2Xv63KmJzOG4vVKwDkNbNI>
I'm not averse to pruning/cutting down trees if they are dangerous in some way.
It's not possible to look at a tree and say whether it is dangerous or not, it
needs an expert to examine the trees for wood rot etc. The bark can hide many
problems.
Some tree varieties have fairly brittle wood and when a bough becomes too heavy
a gust of wind will bring it down as has happened several times in Bury Knowle
Park in the past.
I wondered if any of the trees to be felled are suitable for 'in situ' carving
on the lines of the singleton already there. This could end up as a 'Wood
Sculpture Trail' creating more interest in the park for children.
One can look at the stump of a felled tree and see nothing wrong with the wood.
If rot is found in a tree then it has to be removed by cutting through good
wood below the rot.
It's akin to a person having gangrene in a foot, the leg has to be cut off near
the knee.
A tree surgeon friend of mine once told me that every tree has 'fell by date'!
I have tried to request e-mail contact with Mr Ben Beaumont by using the link
on this website but it does not work. So I am just posting a short message
inviting him to come to our meeting with the Tree Officer at Bury Knowle
Library tomorrow (Tuesday) at 2pm if he happens to be free at that time. This
is also a reminder to anyone else who feels like turning up.
I have read Derek's message, and while it may be true that every tree (like
every human) has a sell-by date, one cannot assume that the tree is diseased
just because someone cuts it down. That's rather like assuming a person must
have been ill if they get murdered.
Part of the blame must fall on the lawyers who place online advertisements such
as "Compensation - Local Council - No Win, No Fee!!!" They encourage people to
complain and milk the system, and this compensation culture makes the local
authority inclined to cut down trees just in case they pose a potential risk.
Six people from this forum plus four others turned up in Bury Knowle Park
yesterday to hear Senior Parks Manager Stuart Fitzsimmons and tree officer
Shaun Gibson explain the current tree policy there.
I think that most people went away feeling modified reassurance. It did not
appear that the decision to fell the 17 trees had been taken lightly, and even
though they are still beautiful they all have serious problems. Nearly all of
them will be replaced by new young trees.
They are trying to save some of the other old trees that are not in a good way.
One tree in this category was suffering from an odd council policy twenty years
ago of filling any large holes with concrete, which has caused rot to develop
very badly behind the concrete.
Stuart and Shaun are both happy to answer any questions by email both now and
as the work progresses. Their email addresses follow the usual city council
formula, namely sfitzsimmons or sgibson with oxford.gov.uk at the end.
The wood will be taken away to be used or recycled. If anyone can think of any
good uses for it in Headington, it might be worth asking.
Yes, we had meeting yesterday at Bury Knowle Park with Senior Parks Officer
Stuart Fitzsimmons, who had expressed concern that too many people might turn
up. I counted thirteen apart from him and the Tree Officer Sean Gibson.
We were taken on a guided tour of all the trees marked for felling, and
were shown that many trees do indeed have signs of insidious disease, while
others are just regarded as being too close together. Most of the trees we are
going to lose are mature beeches or horse chestnuts which are essential to the
character of the park. I put in a plea for the same species to be replanted.
What concerns me is that the council admits that its tree-planting plan and
budget does NOT keep up with the number of trees steadily being felled. Their
policy is to anticipate danger and cut trees down well in advance of their
natural demise, while only replacing some of them.
Since trees like chestnuts and beeches take so many generations to grow,
the policy means that sooner or later we will be left with none at all, doesn't
it?
Apparently there is a scheme for sponsoring a tree. Members of the public
can pay £190 to have a tree of their choice planted in memory of a loved one.
We will see how much difference that makes.
I think the meeting was worthwhile, but I remain concerned about the number of
trees being cut down in the city as a whole, on private property and in
so-called conservation areas.
After we reported that tree meeting, the Oxford Mail contacted me and asked me
to go to Bury Knowle to be photographed for a story about it. I immediately
invited several other people to go with me. This morning I had a series of four
telephone calls from them either asking to change the time or confirming that
it was the same! At one o'clock today, Ben Beaument and I turned up as arranged
at the park gates and no photographer materialized.
Never mind - the trip was not wasted as I needed to buy some moth balls.
By the way, I think there is still time to save the broken branch of the tree
(whitebeam, I think) at the corner of Trinity Road and Quarry School place. The
tree has been damaged for some weeks, but the leaves on the hanging branch
continue to grow, indicating that it is still sufficiently attached for sap to
be getting through. What is needed is NOT for somebody, official or otherwise,
to come and cut off the broken branch. It needs to be fixed back in place with
a splint and bound firmly so that it heals itself. This CAN be done - I've done
it myself with broken branches on other trees. It's just like mending a broken
arm.
For picture of tree being cut down see http://www.oxfordprospect.co.uk/HEADINGTONNEWS.htm#Tree_Felled_in_Bury_Knowle_Park_Today
Julia: You never told us that the Oxford Mail & Times photographer finally made it: http://www.theoxfordtimes.net/news/headlines/display.var.2411554.0.tree_felling_divides_opinion.php I hope the stumps are going to be left, as people are using them as seats.