19 Trees due to be felled in November 2010

19 Trees due to be felled in November 2010

Did you know the council’s Whalley Range Tree Management Plan 2009/2029 includes the felling of 473 trees.

The current phase of the plan (years 1 to 5) will result in the felling of 79 trees (19 trees this year)? The plan indicates that of the 79 trees being felled in years 1 to 5, only 2 have been classified as “Diseased / Dying”, the rest being defined as “Over-mature and unsuitable for location or in decline”.

For more information including copies of the Council Tree Management Plan documentation contact the Whalley Range Tree Group – wrtrees@gmail.com, 07940 926333.

Alternatively contact your local councillors directly:

Mary Watson e-mail cllr.m.watson@manchester.gov.uk

Phone 0161 860 5523 / 07960 514176
Address 41 College Rd, Whalley Range,
Manchester, M168EJ
Drop-in Sessions 1st and 3rd Mondays
6:30pm to 7:30pm
Body Positive North West,
39 Russell Road, Whalley Range

Faraz Bhatti e-mail cllr.f.bhatti@manchester.gov.uk

Phone 0161 861 0202 / 07984 428261
Address Town Hall, Manchester, M60 2LA
Drop-in Sessions Every Thursday 6pm to 7pm,
Manley Park Community Play Centre,
York Avenue, Whalley Range, Manchester, M16 OAS

John Grant e-mail cllr.j.grant@manchester.gov.uk

Phone 0161 274 0058 / 07507 854784
Address 179 Manley Road, Manchester, M21 OGY
Drop-in Sessions 1st and 3rd Saturday
10:00am to 11:00am,
Manley Park Community Play Centre,
York Avenue, Whalley Range, Manchester, M16 OAS

I do not claim any expertise when it comes to tree management. However, like the Forum organisers I care about Whalley Range as I have lived on Wellington Road for 20 years and intend to continue living here indefinitely. I also appreciate the leafy surroundings. If any reader wants to know more about me, please take a look at the personal profile on my website at http://www.mohammedamin.com/About_me.html

Reading through the Council's plans, they seem very sensible. It is quite clear from reading the document that waiting to take action until a tree becomes ill or diseased is entirely the wrong approach. It would risk having to fell a large number of trees in a relativel short period of time. Apart from being more expensive, that would create a long period afterwards when the new trees were very young and provided little amenity value.

Instead the Council plans to fell a small number of trees each year. That will allow replacements to be planted and to grow. I assume that the phasing of the plan and the detailed selection of trees is intended to allow the new trees grow to a reasonable size before their immediate neighbours are felled. It would be worthwhile someone looking through the plan to check that my expectation is correct.

The proposed criteria put forward by the Forum entails far more additional work before a tree is selected for felling. These would add to the cost of the process and I am not convinced of their merits.

Overall, I think the Council is proceeding in the right way and I do not agree with the text of the petition which is why I have not signed it.

Regards
Mohammed Amin

Mohammed Amin wrote:Reading through the Council's plans, they seem very sensible. It is quite clear from reading the document that waiting to take action until a tree becomes ill or diseased is entirely the wrong approach. It would risk having to fell a large number of trees in a relativel short period of time.

I agree that waiting until a tree is dangerous would be entirely the wrong approach. But that has never been advocated by this group. What has been questioned is an approach that fails to communicate any proper detail. And when questions are raised about the detail, none is available. If it were true that a large number of trees were to become dangerous all at once, then your point would have more validity. But Lime trees, for example, can grow for well over 300 years. Individual specimens might be in need of attention or felling well before they reach that sort of age. But you can't predict that every lime tree will enter a dangerous phase after, say, its 170th year.

Mohammed Amin wrote:Instead the Council plans to fell a small number of trees each year. That will allow replacements to be planted and to grow.

But it isn't a small number of trees. Over a tiny period (20 years is tiny in tree terms) almost half the trees are due for felling. It's a big enough issue to warrant questions being raised before the felling takes place. No?

Mohammed Amin wrote:I assume that the phasing of the plan and the detailed selection of trees is intended to allow the new trees grow to a reasonable size before their immediate neighbours are felled. It would be worthwhile someone looking through the plan to check that my expectation is correct.

Well that's quite a big assumption and your suggestion for checking it is a good one. Only we don't have any special resources. So far, the informed opinion is, at best, not wholeheartedly backing your assumption as correct.

Mohammed Amin wrote:The proposed criteria put forward by the Forum entails far more additional work before a tree is selected for felling. These would add to the cost of the process and I am not convinced of their merits.

I don't agree. The questions asked of the council are the basic ones you'd expect to have been addressed at the time the list of proposed fellings was drawn up. Either the information is available - in which case the cost of sharing it can't be that great. Or the information isn't available - in which case it's unreasonable to carry out the planned fellings when people are anxious about the effects.

Ben2

THANKS BEN FOR YOUR CONCISE REPLY to what i felt needed to be adressed

from mark m

I think it is critical to be clear about our objectives.

In my view the sole objective is to have a tree management strategy for Whalley Range that:

· will preserve the general appearance of the area
· avoid accidents
· minimise damage caused by tree roots
· preserve biodiversity
· minimise unwanted aphids
· be cost effective

So far I have seen nothing that explains why the Council’s strategy will not achieve those objectives.

It cannot be our goal to stop trees being cut down just because they are there, or because we feel emotional about them. Trees are amenity plants to be managed in the interests of the residents of Whalley Range and the general body of Manchester council tax payers.

I believe being clear about objectives is extremely useful.

But I think, Mohammed, you've conveniently rolled up six objectives into one quite complex "sole objective". Let's unroll it a little:

· preserve the general appearance of the area

This is probably the most vague and least specific and measurable part of your suggestion. In my opinion, removing half the mature trees over a very small time-span will definitely not preserve the general appearance of the area. If it's unavoidable, then we have no choice. But that's precisely the point at issue - is it really unavoidable? Or is it possible to alter the plan so that it extends over, say, 60 years rather than 20?

· avoid accidents
· minimise damage caused by tree roots

It seems clear that this is likely to be eminently possible without large-scale felling. A tiny minority of the trees marked for felling are considered diseased or dying. Others could almost certainly, it seems, be maintained safely over a much longer period.

· preserve biodiversity

My understanding is that it is the highly fissured bark of mature trees (particularly native or long-naturalised species) that supports the level of insect diversity which in turn supports a range of bird life. So biodiversity would be best promoted by keeping mature trees for as long as possible.

· minimise unwanted aphids

This is something I'm far less exercised about. I accept that people have been known to complain, but I don't believe it's a major problem. People and property are not damaged by honeydew. Cars can be parked elsewhere if owners are particularly fastidious about the daily shine on their paintwork.

· be cost effective

Now this could well be a very big issue. It may well be that the council would argue cost as a determining factor as you have suggested in your first post above. But so far the council haven't, as far as I know, made that particular claim. The position has been that it just has to be done because the trees are over-mature or too big. At this stage, for you to be arguing on grounds of cost seems speculative and avoiding the objections raised in Rionne's points to the council (see this post on the 'way forward' board).

So far I have seen nothing that explains why the Council’s strategy will not achieve those objectives.

On the other hand, you conceded that your position approving the plan was based on an assumption that it was well designed. It's a big assumption and has been challenged by people who know quite a lot about trees.

It cannot be our goal to stop trees being cut down just because they are there, or because we feel emotional about them.

This seems a bit facile and a little disrespectful. I don't think the position of the group asking for a delay to any felling (while information is gathered and reviewed) and asking for consideration of alternative timescales etc is based on anything glib or irrational.

Trees are amenity plants to be managed in the interests of the residents of Whalley Range and the general body of Manchester council tax payers.

Trees have an immense amenity value in Whalley Range. And the relationship between residents and trees does need to be managed. I agree that much. The real question is whether the management plan (as currently drawn up) is the best approach. And it's clearly not a cut and dried case. At best, it's poorly explained. At worst, it's ill-suited to preserving the "general appearance of the area" which you value.

Ben2