According to undated notices pinned to six trees along the east edge of Southfields Recreation Park this week, they are to be destroyed at some unspecified date in the future. Ealing Council Tree Officer Richard Clews advises "September or October". A photograph of the notice and the full text of the notice is included below.
The explanation given is no explanation. It refers to "arboricultural best practice" without further detail. It refers to a tree strategy that does not appear to be available from Ealing Council's website.
We have not been consulted, have you?
If you object to this destruction, if you believe you have the right to be consulted, please sign this petition to Mr. Clews and our Southfield Ward councillors, Mr. Busuttil, Mr. Malcolm, and Mr. Steed.
We may only have a matter of days.
- Click "READ THE PETITION" on the form below to read the brief factual text to be sent
- Enter your details and hit "Sign Now"
- Share on social media, on local forums and with your neighbours.
We'd love to get 100 signatures ASAP. Thank you.
[In case emails are caught by the council's spam filters, your name (not your email address) will be added to the list of signatories at the end of this webpage.]
[emailpetition id="1"]
Notice text
From Ealing Leisure Services
www.ealing.gov.uk
London Borough of Ealing
Perceval House P3/SW
14-16 Uxbridge Road
Ealing
W5 2HL
Tel. Direct 020 8825 6611
Fax. 020 8825 6336
e-mail: trees@ealing.gov.uk
[Undated]
Dear Resident / Park User
RE: Removal of Park Tree
Ealing’s street trees form an integral part of the borough’s urban tree stock and the Council does not remove trees without careful consideration. Under certain circumstances trees may be removed: to abate an actionable nuisance; to mitigate risk of building subsidence; where the outcome will be advantageous to the tree stock in accordance with good arboricultural practice; or to maintain health and safety. (Ealing Tree Strategy 2013-18 Policy ETP03)
Ealing Council has a programme of regular tree inspection and pruning to ensure that all its trees are cared for in a professional manner with public safety as the highest priority. This tree has been inspected recently and:
In accordance with good arboricultural practice this tree will be removed.
After tree removal, the tree stump will be removed as a separate operation. As this part of the site has good tree cover, replacement trees will not be planted in this area.
Signatories to Save Our Southfields Trees
Update 16th September 2014
Nick Hudson says:
Ealing council seems to have a reputation for making trees disappear as it saves them money in the long-term. People like to cover their backs in this day and age and therefore sadly seem to opt for the 'better get rid of it option'.......
13 September 2014 — 10:21 am
Sue Muddiman says:
Ealing's Green Space Strategy 2012 2017 defines Southfield ward as one deficient in access to nature. The council have an action no. 15.5, for years 2013 and 2014 to "enhance the nature conservation value of sites noted by GLA" of which Southfields Rec is one. The felling proposal is therefore at odds with the strategy. Even if the trees were diseased and dead, which they are not, the council would be obliged to replace them. Again, the letter on the trees is at odds with the strategy.
13 September 2014 — 10:22 am
James Smith says:
This action clearly goes against the Mayor's vision to have more trees in London - "Increasing the number of trees is at the heart of the Mayor's vision to help make London greener, cleaner, more welcoming and more resilient." You can read the Mayor's full statement on the following link > https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/greening-london/re-leaf/why-we-want-more-trees
13 September 2014 — 10:49 am
Brian Durrans says:
I bow to none in favouring trees, the more the merrier, but I think those whose gardens back onto these trees, which seasonally shed pesky fluff (the correct arboricultural nomenclature, I believe) , block out the sun and could damage fences, sheds and even the houses themselves if strong winds were to blow them over, should have a louder voice in this matter than the rest of us.
I also refuse to sign a petition whose author is, first, anonymous, and second, doesn't know or care that according to council records the park in question is not plural Southfields but singular Southfield. Call me a pedant, but if someone doesn't defend the established order of things, the next thing we'll know is that Hugo and Jemima estate agent will be calling us Bedford Park borders
13 September 2014 — 11:02 am
Philip says:
Nick, Sue, Brian, thanks for your comments. Most useful.
Hi Brian, and welcome to Bedfork Park borders! :-)
This isn't about me, it's about the pointless destruction of trees. Saying that, in response to your point about anonymity, you'll see I'm the first signatory, as one would expect, and the domain name for this webpage kinda gives it away too. Apologies if you thought it should be clearer.
I should add that it's useful to have someone here who knows the arboricultural lexicon. I now know it's fluff I sweep up every other day this time of year... my house backs onto these trees I'm delighted to say. In fact, it's a good reason we bought this place. One might say that if you don't want trees at the bottom of your garden don't buy a house with trees at the bottom of your garden!
Lastly, I can hardly believe I'm responding about 's' or no 's' when it comes to these beautiful trees, but I'm guilty of checking Google. Search results come back with Southfields not Southfield, and Google Maps lists Southfields too.
Best regards, and hoping you'll sign our petition now. Philip.
13 September 2014 — 12:41 pm
Rachel Lyons says:
Replying to Brian,
I have just signed the petition as this is a beautiful walk of trees. Several years ago Ealing Council slapped a tree preservation order on the huge horsechestnut in our neighbour's garden which blocks all the sun from my euphemistically called garden (more like a back yard). I was informed that no one has a right to light, and all the points you make were dismissed. Ealing Council is not in the least bothered by arguments regarding residents' quality of life. Presumably the difference here is that my neighbour pays for the tree surgeons' ministrations...
20 September 2014 — 1:53 pm
Ingram Pinn says:
As someone whose house backs on to the park and the trees in question, I would like to point out that those of us who have lived here for some time bought our houses when there were no trees at all between us and the tennis courts. As people who really appreciate the value of trees in the urban environment, we, with our children from Southfield school, helped to plant the trees in the coppice which surround the tennis courts, which we have seen develop into a beautiful area . However the poplar trees which were planted close behind our houses have grown to form a very tall green wall, obscuring the view of the park we used to have and blocking light from our gardens, making it impossible to grow many of the plants we previously were able to. Some of these poplar trees were vandalised when they were young and because of this they have grown with several trunks from the ground rather than the straight upright single trunk trees we associate with traditional poplars. I understand that these particular trees, because of their shallow roots are inherently unstable and are a danger to the public and our houses. In view of this I cannot support your petition and hope that the selective felling of a few of the closely planted trees will benefit both users of the park and those whose houses back directly on to them.
13 September 2014 — 2:10 pm
Philip says:
Thanks Ingram. It's good to learn some of the history that pre-dates my time on the road.
I've been unable to find anything via Google about any propensity for poplar to be unstable. Do you have something you can point us to here?
And may I ask if you're happy with the Council's decision to reduce the local tree count by six, period. As someone who clearly appreciates trees, would you be happy arguing for replacement planting, perhaps to fill the gaping holes left in the tree line, and perhaps as Mark Hilton proposes here along the north edge of the park?
13 September 2014 — 3:15 pm
Ingram Pinn says:
Sorry Philip, I may not have explained myself clearly about the trees instability. An arborist told me that the multi-trunk trees were inherently unstable, particularly as poplars have roots which spread widely (you may have noticed some growing along the surface of your garden as we have) but are very shallow. The problem is not with the instability of poplar trees in particular but in those with multi-trunks. I am nowhere near an expert on this myself but in a quick google search found these sites which mention the hazards of multi-trunk trees in general.
http://www.eastsidetreeworks.com/blog/tree_issues/
http://pnwisa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/HazTree.pdf
http://www.mdvaden.com/advice-hazard_trees.shtml
http://www.collierarbor.com/probTreeHazards.php
As far as replacing the trees there are of course the nearby trees we planted in the coppice which are still developing, but I would support the planting of more trees as a screen in front of the car park and factories to the north of the park. In fact I have long wondered why they planted such tall trees right in front of our houses but ignored the border to the industrial estate.
13 September 2014 — 4:46 pm
Philip says:
Firstly, apologies your comment went to moderation. Comments with four or more links are considered spam, but of course in this instance precisely the opposite!
I wonder how much Ealing Council might learn here about open, polite and transparent dialogue. Rather than officious statements hiding behind obfuscating language, your letting me know that multi-trunk trees are less stable talks my language. I hadn't even considered this, as how was I to know? Next time I walk down the row of trees I'll take a look to see if indeed they've slapped notices on the most multi-trunked.
Thanks for your support for -6 +6 = 0.
13 September 2014 — 5:02 pm
Zelie Hilton says:
We have not been consulted or even informed about this proposed felling. If there is a valid reason for doing this that is not at odds with the Ealing Green Space Strategy mentioned by Sue Muddiman above, the very least I would expect is for other trees to be planted to replace them. For example, trees need to be replaced on the northern side of the park to screen the industrial estate.
13 September 2014 — 2:28 pm
Mark Hilton says:
While I appreciate that those in Alexandra Road whose houses back on to the park have the primary interest in this matter, I have signed the petition in that we have not been informed or consulted on this decision. Particularly, I would hope that the trees would be replaced by trees of medium height that do not cause the potential problems posed by the poplars. If that would not be a possibility within the same spaces, I would like to suggest that an equivalent number of such trees be planted along the northern edge to mask the eyesore that is the industrial estate.
13 September 2014 — 2:36 pm
Manfred Mareck says:
Trees are of course beautiful but in confined spaces (i.e. urban areas) they also need to be managed. Our house does not border on the Park but the row of trees in question now seems to be very dense and high. As I am not a specialist I have to leave it to the experts (that usually excludes politicians) to decide whether to trim, cut back, or occasionally, completely remove a tree. But I would agree that residents deserve to be consulted and given a proper explanation.
But thanks to Philip (whoever you are) for drawing attention to this issue
13 September 2014 — 3:32 pm
Brian Durrans says:
Since there doesn't seem to be a consensus among those backing directly onto the trees, it doesn't make much sense for others to sign. If we're talking about ensuring no net loss of trees in the park, then I'll sign up for that and even for screening the 'eyesore' of the industrial estate (though perhaps we shouldn't be so precious about such things:they exist, get used to it, and you'll know it's there even if there are trees in front). In any case, an industrial estate is no uglier than most of the cars we don't think twice about. I also agree about consultation, which as far as Southfield Park goes has generally been good but I guess could be better.
If people at the council who make the signboards can't be bothered to check that the word is Southfield rather than Southfields that doesn't legitimise their error: and the older maps make clear that it is an error.
13 September 2014 — 3:57 pm
Philip says:
Brian, I'm distracted momentarily by cartography. So you're saying old maps used Southfields erroneously, and somehow that has trickled down to Google's efforts in the digital age. Can you point me to anything I can wave under Google's nose. Not only that, but I can add it accurately to OpenStreetMap – http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/165229851#map=17/51.50354/-0.26121
Looks like we might at least have a consensus forming here for "no net loss" as you put it at the very minimum. Destroy 6. Plant 6.
I will disagree if I may regarding your point implying some sort of superior claim to this matter for those residents on the west side of Alexandra Road. They / We have no stronger claim than all local residents and park users. Surely.
13 September 2014 — 4:05 pm
Ray Marsh says:
Sorry, replied in the wrong place...
The issue is not love of trees. We all appreciate the value of the parkland adjoining our properties. The issue is rather one of safety and manageability
As you will remember, there was a petition sent to the council concerning the trees backing onto Alexandra Road. This stated:
“1. There is a serious overhang of our properties
2. There are a number of poplars with shallow and invasive roots, which means that, in the event of a major storm, given the great height and proximity of the trees, there is a serious danger of damage to our houses with risk of injury to the occupants
There are 2 possible solutions we would like you to consider:
1. Reduction of the height of the existing trees. Removal of the overhang and putting the trees on a maintenance contract.
2. Removal of the poplars and replacing them with smaller, more manageable trees.”
Of the 20 houses on the park side of the Alexandra Road, the occupants of 2 were never in and a third house was vacant. Of the remaining 17, fourteen signed the petition without qualification, 2 signed with the reservation that trees should not be removed but managed in some other way, and there was one dissenter.
The petition was initiated because of the concerns expressed by many that the poplars had reached a point where they represented a danger to property and person.
14 September 2014 — 1:40 pm
Philip says:
Thanks Ray. In response to the points you make:
The Council says it undertakes safety checks regularly, and yet such checks did not flag up any issues to my knowledge until the petition earlier this year. Ingram's points here are interesting though in terms of an inherent weakness in multi-trunk poplars. Saying that, I've just checked, and only two of the six trees identified for destruction are multi-trunked, and one is bifurcated.
The petition you referred to called for one of two outcomes, as you describe here. Neither of those is the Council's proposed course of action. It appears pollarding is too costly, and it's proposed that six trees are destroyed WITHOUT replacement. So I hope you might at least join us in calling for no net loss of trees in the park.
Lastly, these trees aren't the property of residents on the west side of Alexandra Road. Many people enjoy them, and as such it's only right that all local residents are consulted.
14 September 2014 — 2:36 pm
Philip says:
To the person who has removed the notices pinned to the trees in the park alerting park users to the petition and discussion here, please do not remove their replacements. This is a democracy.
14 September 2014 — 2:37 pm
MartinTaylor says:
There was talk of trimming the same trees several years ago but it started momentarily and finished just as quickly if I remember correctly. At least we were consulted that time. Full agreement with all the comments on the industrial estate being a little 'in our face' This is due to removal some years ago of the line of trees that existed on that stretch of the park.
Much has been done to improve the environment for children and adults alike but perhaps they could reconsider on this matter.
14 September 2014 — 9:26 pm
Philip says:
Hi, this email has just been sent to our respective Councillors and Richard Clews, Ealing Council Tree Officer. The original email hyperlinked "the 43 signatories to the SOS TREES petition" to bit.ly/sos-trees
____
Mr. Busuttil, Mr. Malcolm, Mr. Steed and Mr. Clews,
Bcc: the 43 signatories to the SOS TREES petition (I do not have the signatories' permission to include their email addresses here publicly, but their names are listed on the website.)
Since my last email to you Thursday afternoon, I have raised a petition to seek consultation on the matter of destroying six trees in Southfields Recreation Park. Forty-three signatures have been collected over the weekend. You may or may not have received these separately depending on how your email server has its spam filters configured. For the record, the petition reads:
"Dear Mr. Busuttil, Mr. Malcolm, Mr. Steed, Mr. Clews,
Six trees are currently scheduled to be destroyed in Southfields Recreation Park according to notices pinned to them. The reason given is "good arboricultural practice" under "Ealing Tree Strategy 2013-18 Policy ETP03" with no further explanation.
The Ealing Tree Strategy cannot be found on the Ealing Council website and nowhere is "good arboricultural practice" detailed. The notices are undated and no date is given for the scheduled removal.
As a local resident and regular user of the Park, I find this unacceptable. I have not been consulted on this decision and request that Ealing Council provides an explanation and undertakes a consultation.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Petition source: bit.ly/sos-trees
[signature]"
I'm pleased to say there has been some good discussion over the weekend, visible underneath the petition on the webpage in question, and there is obviously genuine concern amongst some residents on the west side of Alexandra Road as to the safety of the two multi-trunked poplars towards the north-end of the row. I don't believe anyone here wants to put any person or property at risk.
In an earlier petition this year, some residents asked you to consider either:
1. Reduction of the height of the existing trees. Removal of the overhang and putting the trees on a maintenance contract; or
2. Removal of the poplars and replacing them with smaller, more manageable trees.
The current Council proposal aligns with neither. The current proposal is to destroy six trees and leave the local area's tree count down six.
In an email I received from Mr. Clews dated 10th September, he writes:
"The agreed consultation is with the nearest residents and the Ward Councillors, which has been done, and by fixing notices to the trees (to be done this week). No further consultation will take place."
I wonder, if the vast majority of residents and park users were not to be consulted, who exactly was party to the "agreed" consultation, or indeed who made this agreement. I have not been consulted, and I'm about as close to one of the targeted trees as you can get.
Moreover, while there is obvious disagreement on the fate of the trees, there does appear to be total consensus that no-one wants to see the local area's tree count fall by another six trees, and we would like Ealing Council to respond to this in particular.
To conclude, may I, on behalf of everyone who signed the petition this weekend, ask you to respond to the following before any further action is taken.
1. The Council's willingness to replace any and all trees destroyed
2. Publication of the Ealing Tree Strategy on the Ealing Council website
3. Publication of Ealing Council's interpretation of or source for ascertaining "good arboricultural practice"
4. Publication of the inspection report referenced on the notice stapled to the targeted trees.
Thanks very much for your help in this matter. I will repeat that the dialogue has been most civil this weekend, and it would be good to establish the best route forward. Together.
For the record, I will as a matter of courtesy forward your replies to all those who have signed the petition, and add it to the discussion thread on the website.
Best regards,
14 September 2014 — 10:03 pm
Susanna says:
Hi Philip,
Thanks so much for organising this petition. Just wanted to let you know that this page doesn't work on Safari, or maybe just on Macs in general. I've tried about 10 times over the weekend to access the petition as I'm very keen to save the trees as well - but I've only just managed to get in on my PC at work this morning. I'm only mentioning it incase you can fix it as it would be a shame if it puts people off signing up if they have trouble accessing the page.
Thanks very much,
Susanna
15 September 2014 — 10:16 am
Philip Sheldrake (@Sheldrake) says:
Hi Suzanne, I've tested the site on three versions of Safari with no problem. All I can think of is check you have the latest browser and javascript enabled.
15 September 2014 — 8:04 pm
Kathryn Cooper says:
Hi Philip,
As a resident of Alexandra Road, I've long been concerned about the safety to the public and to our property of these overgrown trees. I was therefore pleased to receive the consultation letter that was received by residents of Alexandra Road in August. On stormy nights, the trees move considerably in the wind and I am concerned that they have reached such a height that they are now unstable, in particular the multi-stemmed ones. My young son sleeps in the back bedroom of our house and it would be unforgivable if there were an accident as a result of any of these trees falling on our house, or indeed on anyone's house.
We've also experienced problems with our garden wall where the tree roots have disturbed the foundations and caused cracking.
We all love living so close to the park and the greenery that it provides but not at the expense of safety to residents, park users or property. I'm confident that the parks team have taken a strategic view of all the trees in the park for the benefit of the wider community and are managing this small number of trees in line with this strategy. I should add that the park has become a much improved space in the last 10 years which has resulted in many more park users from families, to dog walkers, school groups, sports clubs, etc enjoying the green space. The parks team have done a superb job in making this happen and I'm confident in their expertise to manage the park on our behalf.
15 September 2014 — 9:42 pm
James Nelson says:
Having just moved here 9 months ago, it only took a short walk down the tree lined path in Southfield to convince me this is the place to be. I enjoy the trees from my front window and they provide needed shade in the summer. I scratch my head and wonder why would anyone take action to eliminate something that is both a beautiful neighbor and brings life to the area.
16 September 2014 — 10:35 am
Philip says:
Richard Clews, Ealing Council Tree Officer, responded to our petition and my email (included earlier in these comments) earlier today. His response is as follows. I have uploaded the documents he refers to here.
Comments?
Regards, Philip.
___
Dear Resident,
Thank you for your email concerning the Southfields Recreation Ground and for your interest and care for Ealing’s trees.
The Ealing Council Tree Service aims to improve the tree stock of the borough and the removal of these six Poplar trees is part of this aim. These trees are located in an area of Southfield Recreation Ground that has now become dense with tree cover. This has reduced natural light levels in this part of the site. The Poplar trees, which are still increasing in height and width, are competing with the Community Woodland and the other trees in this area for water and light. The removal of these six trees will benefit the Community Woodland, the remaining trees, and the levels of natural light in this part of Southfield Recreation Ground. By thinning out the canopy we are promoting the healthiest and most suitable species, managing the potential risk to the public and generally operating in good arboricultural practice.
The six Poplar trees will be removed during October 2014 and six trees will be planted as replacements, in suitable locations within Southfields Recreation Ground. These will include Field Maples planted near the northern boundary of the site, in the area shown in the attached plan.
The planned tree removals to be undertaken are part of the routine tree maintenance on this site and in accordance with the policies included in Ealing Council’s Tree Strategy. Information that has been provided on this work to local residents is purely informative and not part of any consultation process. The Council’s Tree Service does not consult on the day to day management of the borough’s tree stock, which it whole heartedly undertakes with the aim “To ensure trees remain a defining feature of the borough and that they are protected and enhanced for the enjoyment of current and future generations.” I attach a copy of the Ealing Tree Strategy 2013-18.
The Ealing Tree Service staff have many years’ experience as Local Authority Tree Officers and are committed to caring for trees and I assure you that in this instance the Council is operating in the best interests of the local environment and urban forest as a whole. I trust this has been helpful but if you have any questions about the content of my response please do not hesitate to contact me directly.
Regards,
Richard Clews
Tree Officer
16 September 2014 — 5:39 pm
Jane Davies says:
There are quite a lot of trees that are much closer to the Alexander Rd gardens that are not due to be cut down. One is a huge sycamore which must really cut out the light. It would seem more sensible to cut these down instead and maybe thin out one or two of the others but not three in a row right in the middle. It is the lack of logic that disturbs a lot of us.
17 September 2014 — 11:09 am
CLAIRE MORAN says:
Basically he is saying we know best and we are going to do it anyway so if anyone doesn't like it that's just too bad.
To remove those beautiful and majestic trees so that the overgrown and rather scrubby wooded area 'community woodland' as they call it:) with ugly half tree stumps left where the council has hacked down some trees can grow even taller is ridiculous. I keep my dog out of there if I can as there have been rough sleepers there in the past and they have left faeces and vomit. Several dog walkers have reported having to take their dog to the vet after their dogs has ingested some blue substance that has been found in there, possibly poison.
The new trees they are proposing to plant are just replacing ones they cut down a long time ago by the industrial estate - they should have planted them a long time ago, they might have started growing by now. They will not replace the ones the are proposing to cut - and that beautiful avenue of trees, one of the only really beautiful things in the park, will be spoiled forever.
If safety is an issue - and I see no evidence that it is - branches fall from trees everywhere including from tall trees by busy roads in Ealing and those trees are not cut down (or not yet) - then why aren't they cutting the trees closer to the houses instead of these? Or are they going to be next?
They could avoid cutting them if they maintained them, but they have never done so.
16 September 2014 — 7:09 pm
Philip says:
I just sent this to Mr. Clews and our local councillors, bcc'ing petitioners here.
____
Dear Mr. Clews,
Thanks for your reply here, which as promised I forwarded to the SOS-TREES petitioners. I also posted it to the petition webpage. And as before, the petitioners, now numbering 73, are bcc'd here.
I apologise for the delay in responding, I have been abroad on vacation.
In my last email, I asked if you be so kind to respond to the following:
1. The Council's willingness to replace any and all trees destroyed
2. Publication of the Ealing Tree Strategy on the Ealing Council website
3. Publication of Ealing Council's interpretation of or source for ascertaining "good arboricultural practice"
4. Publication of the inspection report referenced on the notice stapled to the targeted trees.
We're delighted to learn that you now intend to plant a new tree for every tree destroyed, and it would be wonderful if that became standard policy across the board. I think it's safe to say that everyone involved in this discussion is delighted on that front.
Thanks for forwarding the Ealing Tree Strategy document, which all residents can now find on the petition webpage. Your email did not include the inspection report however, which is looking critical to the main point of contention here.
As I pointed out in my last email, no one here wants to put any person or property at risk. Safety is paramount. But reading the comments on the petition webpage and correspondence sent to me privately, it would be remiss of me not to point out that some petitioners think this might be a case of money saving rather than safety. In less black and white terms, and based on an understanding that multi-trunk trees are less stable, some might think two of the trees might be unsafe but the remainder safe.
May I suggest then that the best way to respond to these doubts and help us achieve something approaching a consensus here is, as requested before, for you to publish or forward the inspection report. If you need me to submit a FoI request, do let me know and I'll get it in the system asap.
As before, I will forward our correspondence to all those who have signed the petition, and add it to the discussion thread on the website.
Thanks for your help and patience, Philip.
25 September 2014 — 8:21 pm
Philip says:
Just sent this email to Dale Mortimer, Tree Service Manager, Environment and Leisure, Ealing Council, and our Councillors, bcc'ing the petitioners here.
_____
Hi Dale,
Thanks for your email today. Much appreciated. I don't envy your role in managing such a controversial and emotional topic as our lovely trees!
If I may make a brief observation – the council should look to match you aboricultural expertise with equivalent public relations expertise. By which I don't mean the fluffy media oriented spin stuff, but a professional discipline focused on operational transparency, communication, direct community engagement and consensus seeking.
Take the transparency side of things for example, a quick Google search will now show that the only place Ealing residents can find the Ealing Tree Strategy is on my own website... which is a very odd situation indeed, as I'm sure you'll agree, and doesn't do the effort you've put into the tree strategy justice.
In the absence of this communications capability, this dialogue has played out on my website instead of ealing.gov.uk. And residents clearly feel upset with your husbandry here, even though the professional expertise here resides entirely in the hands of your team. I hadn't even come across the term arboricultural before! But just imagine then how you make residents feel when we're told our trees are to be destroyed based on a word we haven't heard before, told we've been consulted when we of all people should know we have not, and told trees will not be replaced even though we are led to believe that runs counter to official policy.
Your email today responds specifically to the points raised in Sue's email, but not to the main thrust of the email I sent 25th September on behalf of and bcc'ing the 73 petitioners (now 74... we've paused campaigning for new signatories btw).
We now have a copy of the tree strategy, thank you. We now have your confirmation of a full replacement policy, yippee! But we do not have a copy of the original inspection report referenced in the destruction notice.
Returning to my first point here – had we been consulted, had this been affair been conducted openly, I'd expect the majority of the petitioners here would accept your professional analysis and recommendations, however begrudgingly perhaps. Indeed, there probably wouldn't even be a petition. But once distrust is sown, greater effort is demanded to correct the imbalance. Can you confirm by return then that you're willing to forward the original inspection report and conclusions referenced in the destruction notice at your earliest convenience? I will be happy to post this to the SOS-TREES webpage with an attempt at a final summary of these events. It won't please all people, but perhaps the majority will be assuaged by the professional conclusion. (I did mention in the last email to Mr. Clews that I'm happy to submit a FoI request if that is required for any reason.)
I will not post your email to the webpage because it appears it was written as private correspondence. But I will post my reply here and all subsequent correspondence.
Best wishes, Philip.
30 September 2014 — 6:21 pm
Philip says:
This just received from Dale in reply to my email a week ago – included the comment directly preceding this one. I have added clarification points in square brackets – ie, these do not form part of the email received from Dale.
____
Thank you for your further emails concerning the removal of six Poplar trees from Southfields Recreation Area.
I believe you both now have a copy of the Ealing Tree Strategy and as I explained previously (email of September 30th) [in response to another email sent privately by a petitioner here]; we have every intention of publicising this important document as part of our improvements to the tree related webpages. These changes have been prepared in draft and I hope they will be available before Christmas, this is one of our key objectives that has taken time to develop and review thoroughly.
You have requested the original inspection report. The inspection records that we keep are a very simple description of the site visit, there is one for each tree of the Poplar trees but here is an example:
Moreover, Tree Officer Richard Clews provided a full rationale on September 16th explaining the reasons for the tree removals:
I had hoped that my further substantiation of Richard’s report (in my email of September 30th) [the same separate email referred to above] would have satisfied your concerns with respect to this decision.
You have also requested a “repeatable, traceable and consistent criteria used to judge whether a tree is to be felled or not”? Ealing Tree Service has operated in accordance with the Ealing Tree Strategy policy:
The outcome in this instance will be “advantageous to the tree stock and in accordance with good arboricultural practice”, beyond this criteria our decisions are made using industry best practice and many years of professional experience.
I hope I have addressed your concerns and we can now concentrate on improving this park for the future.
Kind regards
7 October 2014 — 1:24 pm
Philip says:
Just sent this reply to the email received today from Dale – included in the comment directly preceding this one.
___
Dale,
Thanks for your reply here to my email of 30th September. I bcc all 74 petitioners here for their information as always, and continue to post all correspondence between us on the petition webpage.
If the inspection report for the one tree in your email is representative, it would seem then that the trees are of "fair condition" and this is not a case of health and safety. Indeed, my interpretation of the inspection report here is that you did not even deem it necessary to conduct a safety inspection. It's important then that I ask you to confirm that not only is the inspection report attached an example, but a representative example. And should one or more reports differ significantly, please do forward them at your soonest convenience.
It would seem then that the only explanation proffered for the destruction of the trees relates to Richard Clews' "full rationale" of 16th September. Could I ask you to explain why this rationale is dated after the notices of destruction were posted?
The rationale appears to come down to a question of sufficient light and water for the other trees in the area. As the Community Woodland lies to the west of the poplars, I can only think it has full, unhindered access to light for approximately half the day, so perhaps this all comes down to water. Do correct me if I have this wrong? And if so, perhaps there's supporting evidence for lack of light in this respect?
As you will know by now, I'm so fluent in the profession of arboriculture as to have never even heard of the word prior to this debacle! I hope you'll forgive me for asking then, on my behalf and that of the petitioners here, for sight of the corresponding hydrology report?
I'm conscious that we're in October, the very month the six trees are slated to be felled. I believe everyone here then would value a rapid and final conclusion to this matter so that the majority appreciate the course of action you are currently intent upon, or that course is reversed.
Many thanks as always, Philip.
7 October 2014 — 1:55 pm
CLAIRE MORAN says:
The correspondence I have had with Richard Clews and Pat Robinson on this subject gives to understand that the 'community woodland' needs more light so these poplar trees have to be sacrificed for that reason. Pat Robinson feels the stag beetles in the woodland will also benefit. I replied that although I might be unusual in this respect, I find poplars rather more appealing than stag beetles to look at.
I am also wary when they mention 'replacing' these trees. I hope I am wrong but as I understand it no new trees will be planted in the area where the poplars now are, if and when they are felled, but will be planted along the northern most edge of the park, by the industrial estate. These will simply replace some grand old trees that were felled some years ago and have not been replaced, and where trees should have been planted many years ago to hide the eyesore of the estate - if that had happened, they would have had a chance to show some growth by now.
I am happy to post the correspondence I have had with Pat and Richard if it would be helpful.
7 October 2014 — 2:26 pm
Philip says:
Response from Dale to today's email (see my last comment here). Comments? Or should I say final comments as I believe we must be nearing a conclusion.
___
Thank you for your email.
I appreciate and respect your interest and concern for these trees, unfortunately I do not have the time to fully explain the principles of arboriculture in detail but I will endeavour to be informative and bring this lengthy exchange to an amicable conclusion.
Following a Visual Tree Inspection on the 9th July 2014 the Tree Officer recommended the removal of six Poplar trees in Southfields Recreation Area. Prior to issuing the works instructions the Officer discussed the removals with me, I was happy with his reasoning:
· These trees are located in an area of Southfield Recreation Ground that has now become dense with tree cover.
· This has reduced natural light levels in this part of the site.
· The Poplar trees, which are still increasing in height and width, are competing with the Community Woodland and the other trees in this area for water and light.
· The removal of these six trees will benefit the Community Woodland, the remaining trees, and the levels of natural light in this part of Southfield Recreation Ground.
· By thinning out the canopy we are promoting the healthiest and most suitable species, managing the potential risk to the public and generally operating in good arboricultural practice.
This was his rationale from the beginning, I only dated it to provide you with a reference to help explain what I was referring to.
Further to Richards points above I would like to make you aware of the following:
· ‘Fair condition’ means the tree is in reasonable health, it is not a measure of public Health and Safety; a tree could be healthy and yet unsafe.
· That said, to my knowledge the six Poplar trees do not present an immediate risk to Health and Safety.
· Poplar trees by their very nature are ‘grow fast die young’ trees. They expend little resource on structural integrity or defence to decay organisms. Consequently they are very prone to shedding branches and structural decay; particularly as they reach and pass maturity.
· The trees in question present a future hazard to the adjacent gardens and the safe use of the park pathway.
· Some of the Poplars present a greater risk as they have developed with poor form.
· Although historically thousands of Poplar trees were heavily reduced this is now not considered best practice as their structural qualities result in ongoing risk management problems.
· The adjacent trees both within the woodland and within the Park are competing with the Poplars for natural resources (light, water, nutrients) and the long term presence of the Poplars will compromise the developing canopies of these trees (currently most noticeably those trees within the parkland). Incidentally we do not undertake hydrology reports you will have to take my professional word that the trees are in competition; if it helps consider the health of any woodland tree compared to that of an open grown one.
· By removing the Poplars we will be promoting the long-term health and growth of the surrounding trees (to the north, south, east and west of the Poplars) which will have a much longer life span and present little if any public risk for the foreseeable future.
If I had more time I would like to explain and discuss the merits of this decision further but I must now concentrate on my other priorities. In addition to the day to day jobs you may be interested to know we are currently working on an extensive replanting programme to ensure that the trees we have sadly lost to disease and storms over the past year are all replaced.
I sincerely hope this has been helpful and that the interested parties are now fully informed.
Kindest regards.
7 October 2014 — 5:45 pm
Philip says:
For my part, I will just say that I feel like the conversation has come far in many respects, and stubbornly nowhere in the respect that counts. We now have access to the tree strategy. We now have a promise to replace the trees. And we now understand the tree team's reasoning here – even if that kinda boils down to "trust me, we're professionals".
And I like to think we have been very civil in our engagement, and perhaps helped the tree team appreciate the advantage of an open, consultative approach.
Saying that, I haven't yet fully digested today's email exchange, and as I'm effectively acting on behalf of all petitioners here, I'd like your opinion on next steps. Thanks.
7 October 2014 — 5:54 pm