Christmas has come early for me
My next door neighbour 'had' and oak tree in his garden and the branches were almost directly above my caravan roof. I was unable to store my van anywhere else, unless I put it into storage and paid storage fees. It's much more convenient at home. In the autumn the roof was covered with thousands of falling leaves which when wet caused tanin stains. In the summer the tree covered my van in sticky sap which turned black. Last week the tree was cut down, apparently the roots started to damage his house walls. Sad for the tree but I am one very happy bunny. What a nice unexpected prezzie.
Comments
-
I can understand you being happy to see the tree go, but I think it’s very sad when a mature tree is lost simply because it infringes on someone’s property or is inconvenient. I wish planners would take more account of trees and future potential before granting permission to planners. Which was there first, your neighbour’s wall or the tree? We can’t afford to lose trees for selfish, frivolous reasons.
2 -
I agree with you that mature trees should be saved if at all possible, but it wasn't just a garden wall, it was his lounge wall, diningroom and kitchen walls so pretty serious for him. Some years it produced acorns, not every year so the squirrels will have to look elsewhere for winter food. For me it will make a massive difference keeping the van clean, it seems strange having a big sky where the tree used to be.
0 -
+1👍🏻😊. Mature native Trees should have a default-no cutting order(TPO)
1 -
Planners often do .... but many a builder has accidentally knocked a tree over on a Saturday afternoon when the council buildings & officers are not in work. The fine for doing so pales into insignificance with the sale price of the house they're building (It's happened locally)
0 -
If the tree was there first then I don’t have a great deal of sympathy. Trees generally cause damage only when assisted by human activity.
1 -
The houses are now 70 years old and the tree must have been substantial even then. IMO the builders don't care about the eventual consequences, they sell, get the money and leave others to sort out any problems, like building on a flood plain. However for me it means spending less time at the top of a ladder cleaning the caravan, so yes, I am relieved.
0 -
The trouble is the house owner has to deal with the here and now so if a tree is genuinely going to cause, or is causing, damage to a house it has to come down. The rules of removing trees are quite strict so you have to have a good case before permission would be granted. We have a tree opposite us which is only 40 years old but is now massive and was clearly planted far too close to the house opposite. If it were to blow over in a storm and fell towards us it would certainly damage our house!
David
0 -
Not a nice situation to be in. Is it actually in someones garden so that ownership can be established? Our local authority has a map on it's website showing all trees with a TPO. Perhaps the local authority could look at it to check on it's condition. I was surprised how many large trees near my home didn't have a TPO.
0 -
It's on public land but I have no idea whether the owner of the house opposite would object to it being taken down as it does afford them some privacy. I did get the Council to cut the lower branches back a few years ago as every passing van or bin lorry was lopping a bit off as they went by!
0 -
Suggest a lowering of the canopy or a pollarding action. You have more chance these would be acceptable in the first instance as opposed to a removal. Both pollarding & canopy lowering are successfully used to restrict growth of a Tree. I’ve done this on many occasions in a professional capacity with great success. British native Trees are in the main the ones with the most TPO’s. The likes of Sycamore & similar species germinate profusely they are weed Trees & are removed readily.
0 -
I wouldn’t have put myself in that situation in the first place. If you build or buy a house next to a Oak tree, you shouldn’t be surprised at the consequences. However, the tree and it’s contribution to absorbing/storing CO2 and habitat provision for countless insects/animals will inevitably be the loser - so we all lose.
1 -
After reading your post I thought I might make more of an effort to work out the age of an oak tree which is thirty feet from our home. There are three of us in this... ourselves, a neighbour and the farmer. We do some branch pruning to lift the canopy and the farmer cuts back overhangs on the field. Somehow the tree has survived and we guessed it was 40 years old plus (about thirty feet high.) So I measured the girth today, 8ft, which means it's around 103 years old! It will hopefully outlive us.
However if a tree is damaging a property it would, as you said David, have to come down, sad but necessary. If it was me I'd be thinking of something more sensible to replace it at a suitable distance, we really do need trees!
Finding the age of an oak tree....LINK
0 -
"So we all lose" do we?
How have you lost?
I haven't lost out from a tree being taken down in Cheshire.
Nuggy feels that he has gained from the removal of the tree.
The owner of the house surely has gained (not lost) by the removal of the tree - perhaps he has just saved his house from needing major repair work. Pobably he has been spared major financial costs.
Would you really rather the tree was kept even if it meant the destruction of a home?Of course your comments may be tongue in cheek as surely you can't be so callous.....can you?
1 -
I thought it might be obvious that I’m talking about the big picture and attitudes, certainly not tongue in cheek. If you don’t think there are any implications of losing trees in Cheshire (or anywhere else for that matter) you really need to pay more attention!
1 -
Bill
I sympathise with your general view but can't accept that if a tree starts to threaten a house that it should not be removed. Here in Milton Keynes the situation is slightly different to many parts of the country in that it was almost all built on a green field site. It has been accepted by our local Council that some of the trees have been planted too close to houses for comfort and risk causing problems in the future. On the upside 22 million trees have been planted in MK so even if we remove the odd one or two here, there are still many more left standing. One of the original planners for MK was quoted as saying that there was a danger that in years to come people could drive through MK and not notice it was there because of all the trees!!!
David
1 -
Gentlemen, no ructions please.
My neighbour had no choice as the damage to his walls is considerable and would only get worse.
I'm sure we all regret the loss of a mature tree, however I will now be spending a lot less time up the ladder so am more than relieved.
3
