Letter: Fell tall trees because they’re all dangerous. Probably.
Tuesday 26th July 2011, 6:00AM BST.
Letter: I am appalled at the planners’ decision supporting the felling of two large feature lakeside trees at Ellesmere, on the basis that possible damage “has or will, in a short time, compromise their structural integrity”, as quoted, from the applicant’s report seeking to cut down these trees, in the Shropshire Star, July 14 –“Planners back bid to fell lakeside trees”.
The incompetence of this report upon which planners based their recommendation is obvious.
There is some “hedging” of bets here. Public please note the “has or will”, which is not the same at all as saying that the structural integrity of the trees is compromised.
The trees are to be felled on the basis that they might at some unknown time in the future pose a danger. On the precedence of this decision we had better fell all tall trees and only plant dwarf ones in the future.
Health and safety concerns are being played upon and used as an excuse by some land owners and planners to get rid of mature trees. This is marring the beauty of our countryside and roadsides. This is health and safety gone mad
I never thought I would say it, let alone write it, but thank God for the French. I recently visited Brittany and the countryside and roadsides are very green and beautiful, the trees there are allowed to grow to their natural graceful shape.
Name and address supplied
Most Commented
- Clampdown on Shrewsbury chuggers
- Bishop's gay marriage views do nothing to support bible teachings
- Planners ordered to stay on Newport visit bus
- Letter: Angered by close encounter of the furred kind
- Letter: Alcohol price plans annoy me
- Shrewsbury’s broadband speed one of slowest in UK
- Letter: No sense in overseas job adverts
Shropshire Star on Twitter
Keep updated with the latest breaking news and content on our Twitter feed.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Shropshire Star and Express & Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
Entertainment
All the film reviews
Before you plan a trip to the pictures, get our critics' verdicts on all the latest movie releases.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new Shropshire Star app
Download the Shropshire Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
shropshirestar.com
Popular sections
Useful links
“has or will, in a short time, compromise their structural integrity”
- On this basis, Shropshire County Council should fell itself.
Report abuse
Quite right. Not only should we be more certain a real danger is posed before felling trees near structures, but our obsessive removal of all deadwood from trees that pose no danger to anyone is one of the biggest habitat threats to our wildlife. Nest boxes are just a substitute for a hole in a tree, the preferred choice for many of our birds.
I have heard it said that dead trees actually support more life than living ones! Without deadwood we would probably have no woodpeckers and very few nest sites for birds away from nest boxes.
Report abuse
[I never thought I would say it, let alone write it, but thank God for the French. I recently visited Brittany and the countryside and roadsides are very green and beautiful, the trees there are allowed to grow to their natural graceful shape.]
I am amazed as France is reknowned for the aboricultural practice of pollarding trees, a practice that in recent times fell out of favour in this country.
The loss of trees over the years can be directly attributed to the increase in car usage. Trees and cars are not easy companions unless carefully monitored.
Trees block sight lines and visibilty as well as constantly grow needing to be cut back regularly. Of course they capture the smut and carbon on their leaves that is emitted by our most popular but filthy mode of transport, cars and thay really do soften and enhance the landscape. They are surprisingly tough considering what we throw at them in our modern world.
I am very sure that if these trees could safely remain then they would have. The trees and landscape officers at the council are always keen to preserve trees but know that they have to be pragmatic about such decisions.
Report abuse
Why not fell them? They are definately a danger.
Why moan about this when you would probaby be the first to complain if a branch fellon your car causing damage in high winds etc.
I have been trying to get Shropshire Council to cut back an oak tree next to my house that quite regulary sheds its branches, ‘touch wood’ (punt) no has been no damage to anyone or vehicles…. yet.
The day it does though I will be the first to say “I told you so…” it’s a health hazard2.
So when people complain about tree felling, maybe they should look at the bigger picture.
Report abuse
pointless talking about it they do what they want anyways
Report abuse
Just look at the photo of the trees they plan to fell. They are growing right on the edge of the mere, and over the years, the water has eroded the root base round said trees. The open area across the mere does nothing to dissipate high winds before they hit these trees, ipso facto, they are liable to come down in a gale.
All in all, a sensible decision.
Report abuse
cut all the trees down at the end of it theres not enough car parking space
Report abuse
Arboricide !!!!!!
Report abuse
I think the council are fundamentally opposed to trees – fullstop. They have over a period of 3 or 4 years systematically destroyed quite a number of perfectly sound trees around the Mere for supposed aesthetic reasons (or exceedingly dubious “access” reasons in the case of the children’s play area) rather than them being a danger to the public.
All trees could potentially fall down and kill someone. Are we going to destroy the Amazon rain forest in case someone gets killed? Are we going to surround the Mere with crash barriers in case some lunatic car driver drives into the Mere? Are we going to strip the elected members of their seats because they talk rubbish – you bet we are !
Report abuse