November issues

RA said:

The Council has agreed to revisit and potentially defer the felling of any trees on the plan where the felling rationale has been identified as pavement damage / size etc. i.e. where it is not related to the health of the tree or the projected useful life of the tree. This is with a view to identifying whether there are other alternative ways of addressing the issues presented.

The meeting with the Council has left us with some additional areas of concern as follows:

1) Time span of Plan - you could be forgiven for assuming that the setting of a 20 year time span commencing last year is based on an assessment of the projected safe useful life of the trees in Whalley Range i.e. felling and replanting trees now so that in 20 years time they have grown to sufficient size when the majority of the tree stock is likely to be in rapid decline / dying. However, as indicated in the minutes, when asked, the council were not in a position to clarify average projected life of the trees in Whalley Range or indeed whether this was 20, 40 or 60 years. No clarity was available either regarding any academic research on lifespans in an urban setting for the relevant Whalley Range tree species. It is difficult therefore to understand why 20 years was chosen rather than 40 or 60. Clearly this would have a significant impact on the pace of tree felling.

2) Survey details - There does appear to be some degree of inconsistency in the survey documents. For example the tree at College Road side 197 Upper Chorlton Rd has been classified as Age - Mature, Condition - Fair and Projected Safe Useful Life Expectancy - 20 years with a description of "In decline". The classification descriptions indicate that a tree would appear to move from Mature, to Fully Mature and only be described as "In decline" when classified as OM - Over Mature. Clearly other issues such as disease may influence this but not clear therefore why the tree is being classified as Condition - Fair.

3) Survey Availability - We expressed our gratitude at the meeting for the additional survey information. However when asked could this be provided for future years we were advised that this was produced specifically for the meeting and would not be available for the trees already identified for felling in years 3 to 5 until next June's survey. In the absence of this level of qualitative information on the Whalley Range Tree Stock it is difficult to understand how the trees can have been identified for felling in future years or indeed why the full 473 trees have been identified over the 20 year time span.

posted by Admin on behalf of RA

BW said:

My impression is that the managment plan is pretty ill-concieved. Or at best it's being ill-presented and ill-defended. As you point out, there is little or no evidence that the plan matches the problem in any sensible way.

The crucial point seems to be that the council officers here are 'hiding behind' a decision of the council members. My worry is that the council members may try and 'hide behind' the technical expertise and advice of the council officers. I think we should act quickly to engage the councillors on this specific terrain of how to justify the timescales and the seemingly somewhat arbitrary selection and contradictory classification.

The councillors say the plan responds to residents' complaints. We need to show that the level of concern over this solution is greater than the calls for action on aphids or problems with pavements.

posted by Admin on behalf of BW

CP said:

I thinlk BW's point about the relationship between the officers and the councillors is crucial in this. The 3 officers said that their policy/plan had been agreed at council level, so we need to make sure that we keep pressure on the councillors and the relevant committee.

BW would you be able to find out which is the relevant committee and who the chair is, we need to be making the points that RW, BW and others are making to the right people.
I feel all the officers will do is to make small compromises,but the big decisions dont come from them.

People must continue to presurise Gerald Kaufman and the Councillors and not be fobbed off by councillors doing nothing but telling people to contact the tree group!
Amities, CP

posted by Admin on behalf of CP

HR said:

Hullo All,

I’ve had a lovely email back from Cllr Mary Watson regarding my letter to the Tree Group including one from Cllr Grant and several residents emails too. I have also responded to a few residents wondering why would the Council deliberately fell trees randomly, which isn’t the case. Why would it?! I know that you don’t believe in conspiracies but please don’t think that Councillors are ‘hiding’ behind the Council and the Council’s ‘hiding’ behind the experts. It just doesn’t make any sense.

The resident’s complaints are genuine and the Council’s response to these have dictated the decision to fell some of the trees. This is a valuable point and a fact that if nothing is done to the trees, accidents will happen and the council will be liable. Your hard work has identified a few trees which shouldn’t be removed, according to some criteria – but these are now very tall and unstable and results in large branches to break in high wind because the pruning at the base of the trees, to allow the use of pavements, has resulted in putting more growth on the main branches. We can all see this happening, especially on Dudley Road trees – where branches are touching roofs. I’m not making an excuse for felling these trees – I want to make sure that this reason is something which is clearly understood by the group. Sadly there’s still no indication from the group that any of the many reasons are mentioned.

It would now be good to look at what trees will replace which tree. This is something which is felt by a lot of people now. I feel that by coming to a meeting I will be told to sign petition, attend photos shoot for Manchester Evening News and will have to listen to great inaccuracies regarding tree management, which subsequently light up fires for very little purpose other than frustrate and anger people.

Please, could someone clearly explain now what the plan of the Tree Group is and what one could help with? I probably have some cheek to ask you what to do next. But as I said before, I am really interested in the future of the trees, that is the new trees!

Amities, as always.

HR

posted by Admin on behalf of HR

SP said:

Dear HR

You seem very upset that the decisions of the councillors and tree officers are being questioned. The whole point of democracy, with local democracy a very significant aspect of this, is that decisions that impact on the lives of residents should be open to scrutiny by residents and should be also amenable to rational challenge. To be open to scrutiny requires that decisions are based on 'evidence' that is valid and legitimate - not based on vague criteria that cannot be then challenged. I for one do not believe that 'experts' know it all - this is no longer a deference society and the public are educated and informed and expert themselves in many ways. Indeed, successive governments since the 1990s have made this a key part of their policy. The notion that councillors and officers are 'hiding behind each other is based on the fact that they cannot produce such evidence - but merely refer to the 'decisions' of each other - not to genuine valid, legitimate evidence. Whether this is a conspiracy or not is beside the point, really.

Many of you have spoken of your work in councils or local authorities. For my part, as a sociologist, I find myself deeply disturbed that 'old' trees are considered 'bad' trees: this echoes the cultural paradigm that youth should be valorized and old age devalued. Old trees are beautiful trees and in many many cases healthy and thriving trees. The notion that 'replacing' these 'decrepit' old trees with 'new and youthful' trees is fine and acceptable fills me with revulsion as it seems to be saying something far more profound about the society we live in, and which I for one would like to challenge wholeheartedly. Old people dribble fall on pavements too - and some people also say they are a risk to younger generations.... so for me this challenge is a multi-layered challenge.
Best,

SP

posted by Admin on behalf of SP

HR said:

Dear SP,

Thanks for your email. I do agree entirely with you – we must keep scrutinising and challenging vague decisions or decision made without valid and legitimate evidence. But we’ve had 2 letters from expert tree surgeons explaining that there’s validity and thoroughness in the Council plan. What was found was the disagreement of opinions as to what is a ‘mature’ tree, ‘old’ tree, ‘dangerous’ tree and so on. This is again perfectly fine to debate – but who is drawing the line and chairing this debate? The Tree Group should. And it isn’t. There’s no evidence to any of the trees to have been ‘badly labelled’ as far as I can see. They all have been found to have a reasonable excuse to be felled.

I think it’s human emotion that drives the counter arguments, and not reasonable debate which would lead to progress which would then let us deal with the new trees. I am really worried that our beautiful trees will be replaced by ‘ornamental’ ones, like we have on Mayor Avenue or Hazel Avenue for example. My concerns are felt by a few people too – eager to get the assurance that we will have replacement trees which will give us the same leafy canopy which we love so much in 100 years time.

I never thought that the ‘old trees’ could be seen in a way you are describing. It would be interesting to know the average age group who are complaining to the council about the trees and pavements. I can attest that 3 of my neighbours loath the trees – and even more so now – and cannot wait to see them all gone. These 3 neighbours are old people, retired and without cars and who have lived in Whalley Range since the 1950s. There’s indeed a challenging multi layered issue here. As to say that the trees are being fell solely because they are old, this isn’t what is being said. They are being fell because they are becoming dangerously old.

The residents complaints are driving the decision of the Council. Either we adapt our trees to our urban life, or we will never manage to keep old trees on our pavements, unless we widen the pavements and shrink the roads and allow trees to grow naturally, which would indeed be a perfect world, at least for me. Either that or the Council finds a way to no liability for branches falling on people’s cars, roofs or people, sap destroying car’s paint work, no visibility at road corners and so on. There’s been numerous amazing neighbourhood projects around Europe, adapting cars and people, kids and play in an urban environment. If we are to keep the other hundreds of trees not mentioned on the Council plan – I think we ought to start thinking about the new trees and their future and perhaps make plans to have the rest of them grow old, safely, in all their magnificence?! Or we’ll be there in 20 years time arguing the same issues.

We have the chance to make a difference. Lets see if we can make it. Don’t you agree?

HR

posted by Admin on behalf of HR

CW said:

Dear SP,

I live in Whalley Range and like HR have worked in the world of horticulture for many years. Your comments resonated with me because when I am teaching horticulture I often point out that the way plants need to be assessed and scrutinized for good health relates strongly to the way we care for humans, but that the the analogy cannot be continued as the methods we use are directly opposed to the way we would treat humans. The first action if a plant has a diseased part is to cut it off and many plants are best rejuvenated by being cut off at the base and/or having cuttings taken from them. (Interestingly taking cuttings is cloning and another emotive subject in the plant/animal world). This process exists in natural settings where animals graze and naturally prune plants. Sometimes if an area is planted with trees all of a similar age and of a similar species this process has to be done by clearing and starting again.

The Limes in Whalley Range were planted en masse and some have already fallen naturally. They are all 100 plus: there are pictures of limes aged at least 20 in Manley Park in 1904. (The limes in the park which have not been subjected to the rigours of 20 and 21st Century traffic are faring much better than the street trees). Now that the leaves are off the trees, it is possible to see the extent of their canopies many of which are depleted and have lost larger limbs (of more than sufficient size to cause injury). Lime trees are very brittle and falling limbs are a bigger issue than with most species.

In an urban environment where space is at a premium the needs of people, particularly vulnerable people should be paramount and valuing the natural world should be placed in this context whilst addressing the need to further our understanding that we are part of the natural world and have a duty to nourish and replenish it. In Whalley range there are pavements which are made hazardous by trees so anyone who is unsteady on their feet or needs to use wheels to help their mobility is forced to walk on the road. There are also trees which impede sightlines for crossing the road. These would seem to be very human needs.

Like you, I would tend to assume that any corporate plan will be flawed, but the tree plan seems to be rare thing that has very long term planning at its heart and (no offence to my Councillors) the results will be appreciated by people who cannot vote for the councillors as they will be long gone. Tree officers may well have got it wrong about a few trees but only by a matter of a few years. Many plants look at their most magnificent just before they die or go into severe decline because they have reached the peak of their growth. In a rural or parkland setting this decline and decay can be equally magnificent but where space is limited and people are walking under the trees, dying trees hold up the planting of replacements and pose a serious threat to humans.

It occurs to me that the reverse may be true in plant world and that it is new plantings which do not appeal at first glance. This may be why little or no planting was done for a good 60 or 70 years. The big mistake that was made about trees was made many years ago when people failed to take the long view- the only view to take with trees. We have the evidence before us of what happens if we do not replace trees gradually and I strongly believe we should act on it

After 10 years some of the street trees in our area have stopped looking like scrappy nervous twigs dominated by bricks and tarmac and started to relax and spread and create the tree lined streets we love in Whalley Range. Already the planting times have been spread over a longer period than was done with the original trees and I think that the best legacy we can leave and the best use of our energies is the creation of a new 'forest' of street trees with a wide range of energies so that future generations will not have to go through the pain of a mass cull.

I would love to be part of a group that was working to ensure thriving urban trees were a thing of the present and the future, but for the moment I do not feel able to support the aims of this group and think my time is better doing what I do which means I'll be continuing to create and nurture communal growing spaces and new gardeners across Manchester.

CW

posted by Admin on behalf of CW

BG said:

CW,

Perhaps you and HR can form a sub group and plan the plantings as suggested.

Aa time when these decision can have big implications for trees across the city It has been so easily forgotten that pre removal underplanting was requested by the group and rejected out of hand by the council as impracticable even though this has been shown to have worked elsewhere.

I cannot agree that all the current trees in Whalley Range are all of the same age ,genus cultivar or type or vitality as they are not.

There is plenty of evidence that trees slow down and calm traffic and latest street design guidance Manual For Streets points to the planting of trees to obstruct views and create slower traffic situations in already slowed environments.The human brain reacts better to unusual/ different environments from a mental health perspective.

it is speed that kills not trees.

The issue of big scary branches crashing down on us is overly emotive.The tree officers know full well that there backs are covered if they carry out regular inspections and make good decisions.However resources are also an issue both from a skills perspective and future funding.This is what also needs addressing.

It is easy to justify the removal of a large tree for one reason or another ,and once it has gone it has gone !not for our generation but for the next.no longer a burden on the state.Before this it was easy to remove a tree outside a conservation area,now it may be easy to remove one inside one.So what is the point of this phoney status?

I agree that there is some room for an improved street environment but the debate has only just started so please don't knock this group. Just take the other tack in a positive way and pursue the tree planting.no excuses about being too tired, because I won't pretend it will be easy. The resources available for green spaces are not as readily available for the street.

BG

posted by Admin on behalf of BG

SP said:

This is wonderful stuff. My point about expertise being located in the community, and not exclusively in 'office', is totally proved through this thoughtful and brilliantly informed communication.

All the best
SP

posted by Admin on behalf of SP

In responce to Ben, I think NSWE stands for North South West and East, I would imagine.

I’ve had a lovely email back from Cllr Mary Watson regarding my letter to the Tree Group including one from Cllr Grant and several residents emails too. I have also responded to a few residents wondering why would the Council deliberately fell trees randomly, which isn’t the case. Why would it?! I know that you don’t believe in conspiracies but please don’t think that Councillors are ‘hiding’ behind the Council and the Council’s ‘hiding’ behind the experts. It just doesn’t make any sense.

The resident’s complaints are genuine and the Council’s response to these have dictated the decision to fell some of the trees. This is a valuable point and a fact that if nothing is done to the trees, accidents will happen and the council will be liable. Your hard work has identified a few trees which shouldn’t be removed, according to some criteria – but these are now very tall and unstable and results in large branches to break in high wind because the pruning at the base of the trees, to allow the use of pavements, has resulted in putting more growth on the main branches. We can all see this happening, especially on Dudley Road trees – where branches are touching roofs. I’m not making an excuse for felling these trees – I want to make sure that this reason is something which is clearly understood by the group. Sadly there’s still no indication from the group that any of the many reasons are mentioned.

It would now be good to look at what trees will replace which tree. This is something which is felt by a lot of people now. I feel that by coming to a meeting I will be told to sign petition, attend photos shoot for Manchester Evening News and will have to listen to great inaccuracies regarding tree management, which subsequently light up fires for very little purpose other than frustrate and anger people.

Please, could someone clearly explain now what the plan of the Tree Group is and what one could help with? I probably have some cheek to ask you what to do next. But as I said before, I am really interested in the future of the trees, that is the new trees!

Dear BG,

Thank you for your reply and thank you for posting my email. However, if the admin repost emails, could the email be copied complete. You had asked the question : what was meant by NSEW in the Council's plan - I had replied that it probably was North, South, East and West. You also removed your own question from your own post in this forum.

Your offer that Cath and myself set up a 'sub group' isn't really useful. I haven't met Cath yet and I was interested in her views. There are also many others who really want to get cracking with a positive planting project, such as Mohammed, Joe, Cath, Mark and Yvonne. We are unbedted by your efforts, we really are, and we only stressed that we don't like the opposition to the council plan at this stage, with bad publicity and photos but would rather start looking at the replanting scheme in a view to not cull all the trees at the same time in 20 years time. We are positive and if our opinions aren't yours it doesn't mean we are negative and 'against' the group.

Best.

Helene,

Thank you for posting.

I hope you don't feel censored. In posting the thread I have attempted to reproduce the relevant dialogue.

The incompleteness you mention relates to an original passage from BW (NB. this is a different person from BG). The sentence was:

"Not sure what the NSWE values represent in the table."

The NSWE query was not included in the post attributed to BW. But neither was a great deal of the original email. What was posted was the material relevant to this particular discussion. Without the table to refer to, the NSWE query is also confusing.

It seemed pretty obvious that the letters represented the points of the compass. The question was about what the corresponding numbers indicated. That question wasn't answered in your response.

So on the grounds of relevance, clarity and usefulness the line about NSWE was not included.

Hope this helps.

Admin

Thanks Admin!

Oh, forgot - NSWE with a number represent a position on the OS map.

Helene wrote:
I’ve had a lovely email back from Cllr Mary Watson regarding my letter to the Tree Group including one from Cllr Grant and several residents emails too.

It's nice that you got a lovely email - does it contain any useful information?

Helene wrote:
I have also responded to a few residents wondering why would the Council deliberately fell trees randomly, which isn’t the case. Why would it?!

I don't think anyone suggested the council's planned actions were random - they're difficult to understand without further information. We haven't been able to get the further information we asked for. We said: that's not very good communication. We also said: please don't cut any trees down until we're clear. It's not the kind of thing you can undo in a hurry.

Helene wrote:
I know that you don’t believe in conspiracies but please don’t think that Councillors are ‘hiding’ behind the Council and the Council’s ‘hiding’ behind the experts. It just doesn’t make any sense.

The suggestion was that there are two groups of people (not three) - namely council members and council officers. Council members hold voting power but less specialist knowledge. Council officers have specialist knowledge and no voting power. I'm afraid the metaphor is probably a better fit than you'd like to think. Each group can point to the other and say the decision lies there. There doesn't need to be a conspiracy. There just needs to be a question that's difficult to answer. I happen to think that both groups of people do some excellent work. That doesn't mean I think their actions or decisions should be unquestioningly supported.

Helene wrote:
The resident’s complaints are genuine and the Council’s response to these have dictated the decision to fell some of the trees.

There is no need to emphasise that residents have genuinely felt complaints. There is no doubting that fact. What is in question is the council's response. What is also at issue is their response to equally genuine complaints that information and consultation are lacking. For reasons of urgency, this campaign, I believe, needs to stimulate, co-ordinate and emphasise the genuine complaints of residents who are only just learning of the imminent plans to remove a large number of mature trees.

Helene wrote:
This is a valuable point and a fact that if nothing is done to the trees, accidents will happen and the council will be liable.

I think you might be in danger of becoming alarmist and irresponsible with this statement. What is being asked for is a delay to imminent plans while information is shared and contributions are made to the dialogue with the council about the plan as a whole. A delay of a few months is tiny in the life of a mature tree. Accidents may happen. But NOT because people are questioning the council's tree management plan.

Helene wrote:
Your hard work has identified a few trees which shouldn’t be removed, according to some criteria – but these are now very tall and unstable and results in large branches to break in high wind because the pruning at the base of the trees, to allow the use of pavements, has resulted in putting more growth on the main branches. We can all see this happening, especially on Dudley Road trees – where branches are touching roofs.

Specific trees would be useful here. I've not heard of pruning at the base being a cause of tree instability. But I do know that reducing higher growth is possible without felling a tree. It's certainly possible to cut back a tree from touching a roof without felling the tree.

Helene wrote:
I’m not making an excuse for felling these trees – I want to make sure that this reason is something which is clearly understood by the group. Sadly there’s still no indication from the group that any of the many reasons are mentioned.

I think everyone associated with the group would agree that having a clearly understood reason for felling any particular tree was a good thing. The trouble is, the council in its documents (and verbal responses) have been unable to give reasons that can be clearly understood.

Helene wrote:
It would now be good to look at what trees will replace which tree. This is something which is felt by a lot of people now.

I think this is really important. The group should have a twin-track approach. On the one hand, try and delay any precipitate action to fell trees until information is gathered, made available and digested locally. On the other hand, try and contribute to the positive development of ongoing input from residents on what they'd like to see replacing any trees that do have to be felled.

Helene wrote:
I feel that by coming to a meeting I will be told to sign petition, attend photos shoot for Manchester Evening News and will have to listen to great inaccuracies regarding tree management, which subsequently light up fires for very little purpose other than frustrate and anger people.

That's quite a strong and generalised condemnation of a group that's been very careful to avoid generalisations. Every public action or statement the group has made has been based on the facts that have been available. No one has been told to do anything. You're not forced to listen to anything. But in a group that's inclusive, you're bound to hear views different from your own. If you hear things that are 'great inaccuracies', you'll have an opportunity to offer corrections. If you have expertise, it'd be nice if you shared it.

Helene wrote:
Please, could someone clearly explain now what the plan of the Tree Group is and what one could help with? I probably have some cheek to ask you what to do next. But as I said before, I am really interested in the future of the trees, that is the new trees!

The plan is surely what you make it. We don't have any resources apart from the people who come along and get involved. There's a suggestion that a sub-group could work on re-planting plans. You could lead such a group. It doesn't have to be in opposition to the urgent work needed to delay felling. It can be in addition.

What Rionne did was to take practical steps and begin working. That catalysed and inspired others to try and help her in the work. She's done a commendable job in making sure the group is as inclusive as possible. It'd be good if the response was to recognise the benefit of working with people you don't automatically agree with. Find where the common ground is. If you propose some work at a meeting and ask individuals to lend a hand, it's likely you'll get a positive response.

Ben2

From MM This is not so specific but I felt I need to share it re my view point / values that are important to me when I consider what to do at this time.

Subject: To realise the mistakes we are making in using money as a measure of value and I value my emotions.
re quotes below this by MA and SP

The quote from MA and the resonse from SP underneath that sparked my response see below. thanks MM

From MA
"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."


SP response "This is the most revolting thing I have read in all the replies and comments so far.
Not everyone subscribes to such stark Utilitarianism - I guess the logic of such thinking would be that plastic trees are just as good substitutes as real ones?
And the arrogance of the attitude - nature is NOT at our disposal and I thought that instrumental attitude towards it had declined as we have seen the harm that has done and moved into late modernity with its less 'human centred' assumptions - we must respect it and not treat it like an amenity!!! Hasn't the global warming and general planetary crisis made this obvious?"



My response Mark M -

Thanks Susan. You represent a part of me when you stand for the need to change the impact of our human society on the natural world that I believe we are completely connected with.(If we are aware of it or not)

I may not have put it so intensely but it does frighten me intensely when I perceive we may not be aware for of a vital need to shift our awareness of our impact on the nature of this planet and get it in balance so that we recognise what we receive from nature and what we take away.( then we loose as we are part of nature)

Emotions as Value

I value my emotional response. I think it is telling me something about what is working or not working for me. And in that it is reflecting one part of what the society I am part of may have missed or a part they do get if the emotion is joy and appreciation.

I have both gratitude and saddness for aspects of this forumn and the journey for all comers to be heard and hopefully find clear ways to make a difference by making requests for those to be met.
(and there are many who do not speak out loud of course for many reasons)

I appreciate the offers to clarify and suggest ways forward in this very open container called a group. That is definitely helpful and needed for us to moce forward to make progress and I appeciate it as well as the open discussion that comes.

Going Beyond Money as a measure of real value.

I am a New Zealander with UK born parents for many generations.

I can not stress how shocking it is for me to see the huge impact of human beings on this country. Utopia it is not and it is slowly changing the rate of decline. Thank goodness we are waking up collectively

If I had not got used to the experience of a more vital aliveness of New Zealand nature, I would not notice the losses here so much! That is a gift I am gratful for. To get a glimpse of what that vitality could have

been like here in UK so long ago with out having to wait till I am very old and look back to realise the mistakes we are making including using money as a measure of value.

Because it happens realtively slowly each little bit doesn't seem quite so important and soon we get used to how it is.

We all have such different experiences and values. I hope we can continue to find a common valuing that meets the needs for the future need to keep changing the impact we make on Whalley Range and UK.

I am reminded by A Chief Seattle Quote which says something like when all the trees are gone etc you can't eat money. Not quite that bad yet! but a warning re money

Thanks Mark Minard

QUESTION - RE OPPORTUNITY - Suggested Proposal if needed

HAVE WE GOT A CLEAR TEMPORARY STOP TO CUTTING OF NON DANGEROUS TREES?

IF NOT I SUGGEST WE ASK FOR MEETING WITH SIR GERALD KAUFMAN AND LORD MAYOR OF MANCHESTER COUNCILLOR MARK HACKETT SATURDAY DEC 11TH BEFORE OR AFTER THEIR VISIT TO WHALLEY RANGE SATURDAU DECEMBER 11TH re their attendance at an open community day at the Muslim Hertiage centre that Saturday.

There is is an opportunity to request them to meet

My suggested request if not already given-correct me if it is given by council (It still seemed a bit vague - we will consider it)

and ask for " a clear stay in the cutting any not dangerous trees" till this process is shown to be grounded in researched facts and evidence by the council in a hamonious clear accountable way with those local residents and suporters who have raised this concern."

In my mind the next step is getting simpler and clearer after discussion with Rionne

That the main concern is as follows:-

The main root premise for the cutting trees down now' is that in 20 years because these trees will be danerous and or decaying aspect of life span'

Is not yet been shown to grounded in researched facts and evidence by the council. It may be true I just haven't seen the evidence yet!!

I.e It could be 40 years 60 years or more.

Hence the root of the whole plan needs attention first in my mind then I can have confidence in what comes from a management plan that can be formed from an accountable reality!

Then other details points can be sorted


Mark Minard.