All posts in the topic Tree Preservation in Quarry (Short link)
Summary
- There are 34 posts — by 12 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Julia Gasper at Jul 27 12:18 UTC
When I moved here in 2005 one of the things I liked about Quarry was the
unusual large tree in the middle opposite the old nursery school. Every summer
the Council comes and lops its lower branches off quite without cause or
justification. They have ruined its shape.
It is sheer vandalism and yet they are being paid by us to carry it out. Since
the awful disaster in Bonn Square in the town centre, I have become even more
alarmed for the future of every mature tree that we have left in this city.
It is not surprising that local kids carry out comparitively small acts of
vandalism - breaking off a branch here and there - when the example they get
from the authorities is to treat trees as being without value.
How can we get preservation orders put on Quarry trees that will keep the
planners' and architects' chainsaws and axes off them?
Council will probably claim the branches are unsafe and could fall on a
squirrel or something.
Far better to create a job for someone and lop them down!
Trees in Conservation Areas already have protection. The tree on this site is
within the Quarry Conservation Area.
I will check with officers the reasons for the work and get back to you via
your e mail address.
Dee Sinclair
City Councillor Quarry and Risinghurst Ward
Dee - Conservation Area status only provides limited protection. Bonn Square is
in a Conservation Area - it didn't save the trees there.
Dee and Julia
If the tree is tended to by a tree surgeon (look for the sign on the truck)
then all's well, but if the council chainsaw massacre gang are ever let
loose on it (I swear they get paid by the branch <smiles>) then it's a cause
for concern.
Joan Williams
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dee" <delia_sinclair@hotmail.com>
To: "Headington & Marston Neighbourhood Forum"
<oxford-hm@forums.e-democracy.org>
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: [HMNF] Tree Preservation in Quarry
What Headington needs is a lot more trees planted, to replace the ones that
have been lost over the years.
The ironic thing is that there is a 2-3 year waiting time for lopping trees
encroaching on people's houses which is very frustrating
A few days ago when passing through Vallis Alley I noticed that somebody had
chopped down a large, mature tree in the sports field there. Why? Who made this
decision? On what grounds? as anybody alerted?
I sent a message to this forum but it doesn't seem to have appeared.
Since then, I have made some more enquiries and I am told that it is actually
illegal to cut down trees in the Spring if they have nests in them. This tree
certainly did have a nest in it, as it was quite large and well-established. So
why was it cut down?
I do not have the ornithological expertise of certain other members of the
forum, but I know a bird's nest when I see one.
If this was an illegal act, somebody ought to be prosecuted for it.
I am getting more and more worried about the random destruction of trees that
is absolutely rife in this city - and fed up of the empty promises and
greenwash of the Labour-dominated city council.
Do you know whether the tree in question had a TPO (tree preservation order) or whether the area falls within the Quarry Conservation Area? If the answer to either of these question is Yes, then I understand that permission should have been granted before the tree was chopped down (unless it was a fruit tree). You can see a list of trees that were recently felled or pruned with permission if you do as follows: (1) Go to the City Council planning website: http://uniformpublicaccess.oxford.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/tdc_home.aspx (2) Choose the "Application Search" sidelink (the second one down) (3) On the page that comes up, under "Application details" you have the option of choosing either "Works to a tree with a TPO" or "Works to trees in a Conservation Area". Then select "Quarry & Risinghurst Ward" in the ward box. (4) Because planning record searches can only shows a hundred results, and work has been done to far more trees than that in your ward, you need to narrow down your search, and you can do this by entering some dates in the "Date Application Received" boxes, e.g. "From 01/01/2007 to 15/03/2008". That particular search brings up 22 trees in the Quarry Conservation area, and four trees with TPOs in the Quarry & Risinghurst ward, all of which have had surgery or been felled in the last year or so.
Thank you very much, Stephanie, for that informative message.
I have scanned the planning applications and can't so far find any reference to
the tree in the sports field. But I am dismayed about the casual way that the
City Council is handing out permission to cut down or greatly reduce trees all
tghe time.
So far from being "protected" because they are in a conservation area, large
numbers of native broad-leaved trees are being cut down at random for no good
reason, and nobne are being planted.
I discovered that there is an application for greatly reducing the height of
a clump of beautiful trees at 16A Trinity Road which is just around the corner
from me and in view of my garden.
PLEASE EVERYONE WRITE TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND PROTEST.
It is outrageous. Permission should certainly not be given for any of the
proposals now pending to cut down native broad-leaved trees in Quarry. Not all
of Quarry is a conservation area, and it makes no difference in practice
whether it is or not. We have lost a lot of trees through the insensitive
development in Spring Lane, and we definitely need those which are left.
Last year they gave permission to cut down four or five beautiful cherry
trees, several beeches and a large sycamore. The random hacking of the tree in
School Place was done without any permisison at all.
PS I am not opposed to trimming or removing large conifers which are not
native trees and can grow far larger than people intended when they put them in
their gardens. But we need the native trees to create oxygen and give some
character to the landscape.
Just to help people who do want to object to the cutting of these beautiful ash trees at 16a, Trinity Road:- You can ring the City Council Tree Officer, Kevin Caldicott, on Ox. 252860. ALTERNATIVELY, YOU CAN PUT IN AN OBJECTION ONLINE BY GOING TO THE CITY COUNCIL’S WEBSITE http://uniformpublicaccess.oxford.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_comments_entryform.aspx?caseno=JWSTXGMF0JJ00
I'd want a bit more detail first.. The application says "Prune (to reduce by 30%) three Ash trees in the Headington Quarry Conservation Area at 16a Trinity Road." That doesn't seem, to me, to constitute "random destruction". And there might be a very good reason for it, and I'm told spring is the correct season to be doing it in. I'd rather keep my powder dry for cases where obsessive "Health and Safety" metrics have been applied... On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Julia Gasper <hammerk1avier@aol.com> wrote: > Just to help people who do want to object to the cutting of these beautiful ash trees at 16a, Trinity Road:- > > You can ring the City Council Tree Officer, Kevin Caldicott, on Ox. 252860. > > ALTERNATIVELY, YOU CAN PUT IN AN OBJECTION ONLINE BY GOING TO THE CITY COUNCIL'S WEBSITE > > http://uniformpublicaccess.oxford.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_comments_entryform.aspx?caseno=JWSTXGMF0JJ00 > > > Julia Gasper > Headington Quarry, Oxford England > Info about Julia Gasper: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/juliagasper > > This topic's messages may be viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/oIw2fTQLbc1PlkE5J271N > > > ----------------------------------------- > To post, send your message to: <email obscured> > To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on," > in subject line and send to: <email obscured> > > More info about Headington & Marston Neighbourhood Forum: > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/oxford-hm > > E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules > ----------------------------------------- > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net >
There is now an application pending to fell a mature sycamore tree at 7a, New
Cross Road in Quarry, and to cut back another one in the same place
drastically. After the disaster at Bonn Square I am particularly sensitive
about any threat to sycamore trees.
The sycamore is a characteristic tree of this area, tall and beautiful but
increasingly rare. I will be asking whether there is any strong reason for
felling the tree, and unless it is diseased or dangerous, I will be objecting.
Anyone else who wants to comment will find it on the council Planning Matters
website ref.08/00574/CAT.
I went to look at the sycamore trees in New Cross Road and they seem to be
small and inoffensive. They're in a back garden far away from any buildings.
What struck me was the severe lack of native, deciduous trees in this street.
It is dominated by over-grown conifers, which people put in their front gardens
because they are evergreen, not realizing how tall they grow. Two of the larger
houses in New Cross Road are hidden behind giant conifers. Two others sport
spiky little palms, which are popular in Pitts Road too, though they look quite
out of place, especially with the conifers. Other people seem to favour giant
grasses in their front gardens, or just concrete.
None of this is good for oxygen in the atmosphere, or for sheltering birds.
I looked on the City Council Planning website today and could find no trace of
the application to drastically prune the grove of ash trees in Windmill Road. I
wonder what has happened to it? I did request that they put a Tree Preservation
Order on the whole lot. It would certainly be a tragedy to lose these beautiful
trees, one of our last links with the previous rural character of this area.
I am also wondering what has been decided about the sycamores at number
7, New Cross Road.
Looking through the planning records, I notice that since March 2007 eleven
sycamore trees have been cut down in a very small radius of Quarry, all with
the permission of the tree officer, Kevin Caldicott, who raised no objection.
Two were in Beaumont Road, where an ash was cut down at the same time. Two
sycamores were cut down at 60, Pitts, Road, and two more at 48, Pitts Road, in
April 2007. Then three more at 44 Pitts Road, and two at 42 Pitts Road. No
wonder that area looks so bare and denuded of any natural vegetation! In
September 2007 yet another sycamore was cut down at 1b Gladstone Road.
Further mature trees were cut down at the Six Bells pub within the last few
months. None of these trees were diseased or dangerous.
If this is not "random destruction" it is something worse, that is,
systematic destruction, steady and appalling. It seems that the tree officers
are doing nothing at all to oppose it. What do we pay them for?
It is essential that we save the last two sad and lonely sycamores that now
survive in New Cross Road.
I have discovered the reason why the application to drastically reduce the
beautiful ash trees at 16a, Trinity Road is no longer displayed on the same
page. It seems that the tree officer, Mr Leyland, has now put a Tree
Preservation Order on them, so they are listed under Works to a Tree with a
TPO.
That is good news, but it is no reason to be complacent. Trees with a TPO
can still be lopped, hacked and felled for no particular reason at any time of
year, merely by getting the permission of a Tree Officer, which is regularly
granted. Or of course it can be done without permission, in which case there is
not much anyone can do (in the short term) to rectify the harm.
So, many more objections from the residents are needed to ensure that these
lovely and majestic trees survive. Ash-trees, one of our most ancient native
species, do not grow any taller after the first sixty years, so there is no
need at all to prune them. Doing so would destroy the natural fan-shape of the
crown and reduce them to stumps. Since the woodland in Spring Lane has been
destroyed they are one of our last links with Shotover and they were incredibly
beautiful covered in the recent snow. Every day I see birds perching in their
top-most branches.
I see on the Council Planning Matters website the following words: "Note:
For reasons of confidentiality, Oxford City Council may choose not to display
certain Planning Applications."
That is very puzzling. Surely by its nature, City Council business is public
business and therefore should be open to the public. If some applications are
confidential, what happens to the princoplse that the public is entitled to
know what is going on and what is being done in our name?
It is rather curious that the citizens who pay the expenses of the Council, can
be excluded from knowing what the Council is doing. What reason is there for
this confidentiality in certain cases? Why is it necessary?
There appears to be a discrepancy here between confidentiality and the
principles of public accountability.
How is this consistent with the Freedom of Information Act?
I do know that one reason for confidentiality that I have come across
in the past has been, for example, decisions about domestic abuse
shelters.
I think you'd probably agree that it would be best not to have the
perpetrators knowing where their abused wives and partners have gone
to escape them. It must just be human nature I suppose that people
see wording like that and assume there must be some sinister or
underhand reason for it. There may well be, but I do know there are
very valid reasons also.
I guess it'd be the same human nature that assumes all tree work is 'systematically destructive' (because no tree could ever get diseased, or grow too big, or present a public liability of a danger of falling on someone... ahem [1]), that that Council Tree Officers are 'in league' with householders who, rather than just banging a few copper nails into it, hide their true intentions by paying for professional tree surgeons to go through the submission of various bits of documentation through the proper channels on their behalf. Now it'd be nice to be able to see the relevant decision documentation on the planning website (much as you can see for planning applications), but it seems an unreasonably large step from that to start accusing the tree officer of professional misconduct! [1] http://www.oxfordmail.net/search/display.var.962042.0.tree_tragedy_an_accident.php On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Jock Coats
If Nigel had bothered to read my messages before he rubbished them, he would
find that on 27th March I wrote "I will be asking whether there is any strong
reason for
felling the tree, and unless it is diseased or dangerous, I will be objecting."
Again, on April 6th I wrote of the large number of trees that have been felled
in Quarry in the past year or so "None of these trees were diseased or
dangerous."
So I have already answered the question about whether they were healthy or not.
I did not use any such term as "in league" nor "sinister" or "underhand" ,
terms which are supplied by the strong imaginations of Nigel and Jock.
The Council's announcement about some planning applications being
"confidential" comes from the webpage relating to trees and felling. Is Jock
really expecting us to believe that the Council uses ttrees at secret addresses
for refuges? I can only assume you are joking, Jock.
1st of April's over, you know!
If any one has a serious explanation of why the Council should keep some
planning applications secret regardless of public accountability, then I am
still waiting to hear it.
The problem attitude, or "mentality", is the tree-hating attitude. Almost
every time a house is sold the first thing people do when they move in is to
cut down all the trees. I noticed this at the last address where I lived. On
one side the new occupants cut down some lovely apple trees behind the house,
and paved over the front garden for parking (despite living opposite a car
park) while on the other they cut down the small ornamental laburnum tree that
had such beautiful flowers in the Spring. The new owners just cleared all the
trees out automatically , regarding them as a form of clutter or "mess". That
is the attitude that we are up against. That and apathy.
I *did* read them. I asked for more detail. From what I can see so far, all you have given in response is an opinion (presumably your own, not as someone who is a qualified tree surgeon) that they weren't 'diseased or dangerous'. Evidently the reasons given in the applications were sufficient to satisfy the regulations. This leaves me with the impression of someone who either seem to conflate any work on a tree with its destruction, or that you don't believe it's acceptable to make any alterations to a tree at all, ever. If that's true, then the poor council tree officer doesn't stand a chance - you'll never be happy. I'm not apathetic in the slightest about genuine problems. But before I follow an ALL CAPS CALL TO ARMS, I do at least like to know that my tub-thumping is well grounded. If you've evidence there's, say, some cynical developer 'accidentally on purpose' destroying a tree (and not replanting as they should), I'll light the torch and grab my pitchfork. Are rules being broken? Or is it just that you don't like the rules as they are, and you think they ought to say something else? I like trees. I'm all for planting some more. I'm sad when one gets removed that adds something to the overall environment, but I stop some way short of a tree-fetishistic "all trees must live at all costs", as I do understand there are other factors that come into play. Just because a sycamore gets removed in Bonn Square neither adds to, nor removes weight to a case to do work on another. Now some reasons I regard as 'fair enough' (it's dead, it's dangerous, it's got too big, it's damaging xyz), and some that make me quite annoyed (a conker might fall on someone's head; in a hurricane it might fall on someone's head; a lunatic might crash their car into it, and die). The second category are usually followed by a '.. and then they sue the council'. Thank 'no win, no fee' for that one. And as for homeowners flattening their front garden and concreting over it - I dislike that too; and I lay responsibility *directly* at the door of the council. If parking permits go up (ho ho), I shall probably be doing the same. > If Nigel had bothered to read my messages before he rubbished them, he would find that on 27th March I wrote "I will be asking whether there is any strong reason for > felling the tree, and unless it is diseased or dangerous, I will be objecting." > > Again, on April 6th I wrote of the large number of trees that have been felled in Quarry in the past year or so "None of these trees were diseased or dangerous." > > So I have already answered the question about whether they were healthy or not. > I did not use any such term as "in league" nor "sinister" or "underhand" , terms which are supplied by the strong imaginations of Nigel and Jock. > The Council's announcement about some planning applications being "confidential" comes from the webpage relating to trees and felling. Is Jock really expecting us to believe that the Council uses ttrees at secret addresses for refuges? I can only assume you are joking, Jock. > 1st of April's over, you know! > If any one has a serious explanation of why the Council should keep some planning applications secret regardless of public accountability, then I am still waiting to hear it. > The problem attitude, or "mentality", is the tree-hating attitude. Almost every time a house is sold the first thing people do when they move in is to cut down all the trees. I noticed this at the last address where I lived. On one side the new occupants cut down some lovely apple trees behind the house, and paved over the front garden for parking (despite living opposite a car park) while on the other they cut down the small ornamental laburnum tree that had such beautiful flowers in the Spring. The new owners just cleared all the trees out automatically , regarding them as a form of clutter or "mess". That is the attitude that we are up against. That and apathy. > > > Julia Gasper > Headington Quarry, Oxford England > Info about Julia Gasper: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/juliagasper > > This topic's messages may be viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6iNWu5KF4AmmnJ4MJJt96U
No, Nigel, you evidently haven't read my messages as I said above that I am NOT
opposed to cutting down certain trees for certain reasons - overgrown Leyland
cypresses for instance or diseased trees. You are quite wrong about me. When a
plum tree in my own garden got diseased, of course I had it vcut down - but I
immediately bought three more to replace it.
We are supposed to be committed to carbon reduction, as a national policy, and
the best policy is to ensure the survival of our broad-leaved native trees. But
there is little sign of that in practice. It is just greenwash.
There is genuine cause for concern when dozens of good hard-working
oxygen-generating trees are being felled and hacked down all around us in what
is supposed to be a conservation area, and the Tree Officer does nothing about
it. Even if people are what Wordsworth called "dull of soul" and unable to
appreciate the natural beauty of the trees, they should at least listen to the
advice of Richard Attenborough : "Without them, we will surely perish."
I have a very serious explanation as to why Oxford
City Council must keep some planning applications as
confidential. I understand there are some men -
perpetrators of abuse to women - who will go to any
lengths to find out the addresses of Refuges for women
and their children. This could include trawling
through applications for change of use, extensions and
refurbishments (including the provision of play
facilities in the gardens) of properties owned or
purchased by Local Authorities or Housing
Associations. It seems that their aim is to further
abuse the women who have escaped from their violence
to a safe house. In some cases, it is women friends
and relations of the perpetrator who do the initial
research and identification of the property.
For this reason I fully support Oxford City Council in
keeping the addresses of some planning applications as
confidential matters. I trust that this is also the
policy of all local authorities in UK and Northern
Ireland.
Marie Vickers
The Tree Officer, Kevin Caldicott, has not yet made any final decision about the fate of the lovely grove of ash trees at 16a, Trinity Road. So there is still time for those who care at all about our environment and appreciate it to go to the Planning Matters site and put in an objection. The new reference number of the application 08/00392/TPO since the tree preservation order, and the webpage > http://uniformpublicaccess.oxford.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_comments_entryform.aspx?caseno=JWSTXGMF0JJ00 > Otherwise you can ring up the tree officers on Monday on Ox. 252860. The ash grove, how graceful, how plainly 'tis speaking, The wind through it playing has language for me, Whenever the light through its branches is breaking, A host of kind faces is gazing on me.
Still no decision about the grove of ash trees.
But last week the council tree officer gave permission to prune some beautiful
mature deciduous trees in between Trinity and Beaumont Road by "up to 10%".
The next time I walked past them, they had been slaughtered. About half of the
branches were gone and instead of well-rounded crowns, they now have a sort of
lollipop shape.
If that is what people call ten per cent, then a 30% "prune" of the ash grove
will reduce it to a pile of logs on the ground.
I wouldn't worry too much about the amount of pruning: nature always
comes back. I am always shocked after I have the large old apple tree
in my garden professionally pruned, but it always looks much better
for it later on.
Trees do need pruning and felling regularly. Every time there is a
storm, another tree falls in the Mesopotamia walk through the
University Parks; but this laissez-faire attitude cannot be allowed in
the city, where people are very likely to be killed. (As it is, one
huge old tree in Parks Road fell a couple of years ago, but thankfully
did not hit anyone.)
What I would query is the time of year that this pruning is being
done. It is an elementary rule of gardening that such pruning should
be done in the dormant season, before the sap rises and the tree has
come into bud. If planning permission to prune is granted after
February, then the pruning should be postponed until the following
winter.
Pruning at this time of year means that wound closure will take
longer, disease is more likely to spread, and sap will flow from the
wounds. The lime trees in All Saints Road were heavily pruned (almost
pollarded) during the growing season a couple of years ago, and they
are taking a very long time to recover.
I have seen no evidence at all that the trees in Beaumont Road were dangerous,
and the same goes for the ash trees in Trinity Road. If people apply for a 10%
pruning they should stick to 10%.
As it happens, I live next door to an extremely tall conifer - it must be about
twice the height of the ash trees and far more top-heavy, but there is nothing
that I can legally do about it. The tree officer told me that if it fell down
and crushed my little bungalow, I would have to claim on my insurance! Great.
People cut down the wrong trees. I am amazed to see lovely fruit trees, all
very small, being cut down all the time for no reason all around us. People
just think they are untidy and have a tendency to believe that fruit grows on
supermarket shelves. When the house on the corner of Stile Road was converted
into flats, they cut down a flourishing apple tree and concreted over the
garden. Yet the area now used as a car park does not include the bit where the
apple tree stood. It was just done because of a sort of anti-tree mentality.
"Concrete good. Leaves bad".
I am happy to report that the application to prune the grove of ash trees in
Trinity Road, has been, at least for the present, withdrawn. Maybe the Tree
Officer advised that this was indeed too late in the season to carry out the
pruning. If so, we may not have heard the last of this and vigilance will be
needed next winter.
Personally I don't think that trees of this kind need pruning at all. Once they
have reached maturity they are not going to get any larger.
Trees left to grow in their natural habitat are stable and do not topple over
unless they are old and diseased, or encounter a freak gale. They have evolved
to stay upright. The problem is that people too often come along and hack off
their lower branches (as was done with the tree in Quarry School Place). If you
live in a town you have probably never seen a tree whose lower branches have
not been lopped like this. You grow up imagining that all trees are
lollipop-shaped. They're not. Look closely and will always see the stumps. When
you cut off a tree's lower branches, it is forced to grow upwards, and so gets
taller. Eventually it gets top-heavy and then the same busybodies come along
and say "That tree looks dangerous, we'll have to cut it down!"
So-called pruning usually destroys the natural, subtly harmonious form of
trees and although they do grow back they rarely regain their full beauty.
Often they are reduced to something that looks like a washing-up brush. The
ones in Lime Walk are indeed a very sad sight, and I know there was a battle in
that area to preserve them at all.
Of course if you plant trees like giant pines or conifers in the wrong
place, close to a house, they will get too tall, and that is another matter
altogether. They evolved to grow in dense forests on mountain-sides where they
would shield each other from the wind. They are completely unsuitable for
cities or suburban gardens.
The High Hedges Act of 2005 should have dealt with impossibly high Leylandii
"hedges" that block out all the light from neighbours’ gardens, but I doubt
whether there have been any applications under the Act in Oxford, as the City
Council charges £450 per application (many other councils offer the service
free: there is no guarantee of success).
And I don’t think that the city council wants to be bothered with applications
anyway, as I can't find any mention of the High Hedges Act anywhere on its
website.
There is an interesting article in The times today about trees and tree preservation: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3792556.ece *** A plane in Mayfair has been valued at £750,000, making it Britain’s most valuable tree. The valuation of the 6ft-wide tree, which has graced Berkeley Square since Victorian times, is based on a new system devised by local authority tree officers. It takes into account size, health, historical significance and the number of people living near by to enjoy it. This valuation system, known as the capital asset value for amenity trees (Cavat), is to be adopted by every local authority in the country to prevent the massacre of trees blamed for subsidence in buildings. Healthy mature trees are being felled by risk-averse insurers and councils because of suspicion that they are causing damage to neighbouring properties. In future a well-loved street tree will only be felled if an insurance company can prove that it is the real cause of the subsidence. *** Perhaps, if this is implemented locally, the needless loss of some mature trees can be avoided. I believe, at present, if a developer fells even a protected tree that the fine is trivial - I wonder if the fine might actually scale with the perceived value of the tree in future?
Here's an interesting tree felling application - http://uniformpublicaccess.oxford.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=JZSB5OMF0HK00 I wonder what awful devastation was wreaked by the squirrels? And does it really require the destruction of seven early mature trees?
Thank you, Dermot, a fascinating article. If only a price had been put on the
trees in Bonn Square, how much were they worth? They were certainly used and
enjoyed by a huge number of people.
Even if they were only valued at £100,000 each that still adds up to about
£600,000 doesn't it?
Thanks also to Chris. I have actually followed the link and put in an
objection. I would rather see steps taken against grey squirrels which are a
pest in this area, than against the trees.
Would anybody like a baby ash-tree to nurture in their garden? I am
collecting small ones that are seeded by the nearby ash grove, and potting
them. I have found out some interesting things about the ash-tree. It is
associated with the Nordic god Woden, and was believed to have very powerful
anti-venomous properties, so much so that no poisonous beast will live near to
it. According to Rembert Dodoens' "A New Herball, or Historie of Plants"
(1606), the juice of its leaves, infused in wine, preserve from all venom,
especially against the bitings and stingings of serpents and vipers. They are
also effective against dropsy and furthermore possess the power of making fat
people thin. "For such as are grosse or fat, daily drink 3 or 4 ashen leaves in
wine". This will have the result of rendering them "leane".
If there is any truth in that, the ash-tree should be one of the most
highly-prized plants in the diet-mad western world.
An application has been submitted to the City Council to fell a mature ash tree in Larkfields, which has a Tree Preservation Order on it. No reason has been given for destroying it. If you want to object to the loss of yet another mature tree, part of our rapidly-dwindling stock, go to the Council Planning Matters website and look for application 08/00976/TPO Unless the tree is diseased or dangerous, I am strongly in favour of keeping it. There must have been a reason for it being put under a Tree Preservation order in the first place i.e. it is in a prominent public position where it provides an amenity for the area (shade, screening, etc). Even if you know nothing about trees, even if you thought an ash tree was something that smokers used, do go to the Planning Matters site and demand to know what strong justification there is for this destructive act. http://uniformpublicaccess.oxford.gov.uk
I have a very serious explanation as to why Oxford City Council must keep some
planning applications as confidential. I understand there are some men -
perpetrators of abuse to women - who will go to any lengths to find out the
addresses of Refuges for women and their children. This could include trawling
through applications for change of use, extensions and refurbishments
(including the provision of play facilities in the gardens) of properties owned
or purchased by Local Authorities or Housing Associations. It seems that
their aim is to further abuse the women who have escaped from their violence to
a safe house. In some cases, it is women friends and relations of the
perpetrator who do the initial research and identification of the property.
For this reason I fully support Oxford City Council in keeping the addresses of
some planning applications as confidential matters. I trust that this is also
the policy of all local authorities in UK and Northern Ireland.
Marie Vickers
Since I mentioned the damaged tree in Trinity Road on this forum, somebody has
come along and spitefully torn off the hanging branch. There is absolutely no
chance of this being storm damage as last night was the calmest and stillest
night there has been all year. It is clearly vandalism. How pitiful that some
people have nothing better to do than to attack a helpless tree.