10/11/2021
Hello everybody! A quick update on the situation regarding the trees. We were fortunate enough to find John Allaway, a local tree surgeon, who very kindly offered to have a good look at the trees for free of charge. I must emphasize that this is not an official report of any sort but another (expert) voice who shares the love of the environment with us.
This is what he had to say:
"Long term management need not be regarded as a pressing issue, in my opinion. Most of the beeches are in sound condition with no signs of stress and I would expect them to have a safe useful lifespan of 40+ years (this may seem a short period of time but in terms of arboricultural survey reporting, 40+ is a long time and shouldn't be interpreted to mean 40 years is all that can be expected).
The 2013 report states that the beeches are "semi mature". They aren't, and wouldn't have been 8 years ago. They are early mature, approaching mature. I'd guess the date of planting to have been between 1945 and 1960, meaning that they are between 60 and 75 years old. Beech generally live in very sound condition to at least 120 or so and can reach 200 years (they are enormous by that age). They rarely live longer than that as 'maiden' trees, though pollards can become considerably older. Obviously, disease or environmental factors such as physical damage, severe drought stress etc can reduce safe useful life expectancy significantly.
There is a certain amount of truth in the assertion that all the beeches will reach maturity at the same time, but only a certain amount. Trees are individuals and behave accordingly. There will be a few dominant trees that are genetically predisposed towards significantly longer lifespans than others. Beech has (potentially) a very wide range of genetic diversity (as opposed to hybrid poplars, for example, which are clones and therefore genetically identical: even in the case of cloned trees, environmental factors still mean that some will live in sound condition considerably longer than others).
Ideally, I wouldn't be starting from here, as the saying goes. But here is where we are and, to my mind, removing the entire belts for the reasons given is not necessary or desirable. The starting point, where consideration of optimum management of the existing trees is concerned, should be just that, i.e., management of existing trees, not abandonment of them in favour of planting a completely new set of trees. My view is that they are fine as they are and can be expected to stay fine as they are for at least 30 years, with only ad hoc safety works as they may become necessary. That's effectively a human generation. Thinking about trees is likely to have changed by the time the next generation is having to think about these, and the over-cautious approach that seems to have been taken here may well be widely considered rather daft by most people, as opposed to just the few of us that can see the wood for the trees today.
The question of what would happen if the current proposals were scrapped is worth some thought. What's the worst that could happen? The answer is that all the beeches reach maturity, and thence enter 'over'-maturity at the same time, as the 2013 report says. Even if we disregard the fact that this wouldn't actually be how events were to unfold, the very worst that could happen would be that all the beeches would need to be felled for safety reasons over a fairly short period of time. Which isn't far from what they've planned to do starting now.
The safety question is important, for obvious reasons. But the existing safety situation is good, from the perspective of the trees. There are no high value targets within falling range of the trees (of course there are people who use the land beneath, and within falling distance of, the trees. In reality, trees that are likely to fall, or which develop defects meaning large branches are likely to fall from them, would be picked up by routine surveys and appropriate action taken and this, combined with the fact that trees and large branches, even where they have serious defects, are only likely to fall in stormy weather, ie: when people are least likely to be walking near them means the risk would be very low, given due diligence. The whole of W1 could fall to the south-west without causing any damage to anything or anyone. It could fall to the north-east and only cause minor damage to fences, sheds etc. My point is that it is not as if these are trees that are soon to become hazardous, in a location where risk to safety or persons and property are great.
Along W1's NE face (bordering the abandoned road), there are several early mature / mature ash which ought to receive remedial works on safety grounds, in my opinion. Most have ash dieback disease and have large dead branches overhanging the walkway. Otherwise, there are a few beech with historic scorch damage to their lower stems (bonfires, possible associated with the development?). There are a handful of dead stems (suppressed trees or stems that have given up the struggle for light). There's no reason why these couldn't be removed, and their removal wouldn't make the slightest difference to the stability of the remaining trees.
W1 was planted in rows, with oak & ash along the NE edge, then a row of holly, then the more random beech planting. W2 conforms a little more closely to the description given in the 2013 report of having been planted in 'circles' of '5-7 trees', though the planting is not as regular, or uniformly as close, as that report suggests even here.
What else can I say at the moment? The quality of the replacement planting is generally poor, with standard trees having suffered from neglect (it looks as if some are recent replacements that are already looking neglected), and the majority of the growth on felled stretches (W1) comprises regen from the beech, holm oak & holly stumps. It looks as if most of the planted trees are small-growing species such as dogwood, hazel, hawthorn and maple, with only a few forest trees such as lime and sweet chestnut, together with quite short-lived species such as birch. The planting at the end of W2 looks a little better.
My conclusion is that the felling and replacement scheme that has been proposed and, inexplicably agreed to by NCC, ought to be reconsidered in its entirety as a matter of urgency. We are all entering a time when nature needs protecting and enhancing, not treating as if it is some kind of a nuisance. This is especially so where trees and woodland are concerned: trees take CO2 from the air and turn it into more tree, throughout every year's growing season. They are providing an essential public service by turning the excess CO2 society produces into beautiful and extremely durable living organisms which provide habitat for innumerable other living organisms, just as anyone with any sense would hope for in this world struggling for survival.. To find ourselves living with a local authority that is willing to undertake mass felling of established woodland for no good reason is very disheartening, and their decision must be challenged."
