🚀 go-pugleaf

The Lake District National Park Authority has produced a leaflet setting out
the facts with regard the Rusland Beeches.  It is being sent to all who write
letters of objection to the proposals to fell the trees.

The Rusland Beeches - the facts behind the decision to fell.

1.    The land where the Rusland Beeches are has been owned by the
      Lake District National Park Authority since 1984, which is
      therefore responsible for their safety.

2.    In 1954 the National Park placed a Tree Preservation Order (TPO)
      to protect the trees which were threatened with felling at that time.
      Between 1957 and 1984 the Friends of the Lake District held a
      lease on the land from the previous owners.

3.    Since 1954, because they are so close to a road, the trees have
      been regularly inspected by qualified specialists and work has been
      carried out to fell individual dangerous trees or remove limbs on
      their advice.  As a result of this continuing careful maintenance
      there have been no accidents resulting from falling trees or large
      branches during this time.

4.    In September 1995 the arboricultural advisor to the Highways
      Authority inspected the trees and warned that 15 trees are in a
      dangerous condition.  He advised a more detailed inspection.

5.    A second specialist inspected the southern half of the row of trees
      in October 1995 and warned that of these 18 are in a dangerous
      condition.

6.    The National Park Authority decided that a more detailed survey
      by a more highly qualified and experienced arboriculturalist should
      be sought.  This was carried out by the Director of the
      Arboricultural Advisory and Information Service (AAIS), the
      government�s specialist advisors.

7.  His brief was to:
          Report on the condition of the trees.
          Recommend minimum work necessary to reduce to a reasonable
          level the risk they pose to people.
          Recommend other options for maintaining the feature.
          Suggest management options for perpetuating the feature.

8.  His detailed inspection during February 1996 identified that 26 of
    the trees are in a dangerous condition, and that most of the others
    require urgent tree surgery work.

9.  He recommended two alternative courses of action:
            a)  Fell all of the trees and replant a new row so that they
                will grow to provide a new feature for generations to come.
            b)  Fell 26 trees and carry out specific tree surgery work
                to most of the remainder.  Continue to inspect at regular
                intervals.

10. The National Park then sought the views of English Nature,
    Cumbria Broadleaves, The Forestry Authority, Cumbria Wildlife
    Trust, The Parish Council and The Friends of the Lake District.  All
    responded with regret that any of the trees needed to be felled, but
    agreement that this should be done on the advice of the AAIS,
    because of the danger to public safety.

11. The Park Management Committee of the NPA held a site visit to
    which the Friends of the Lake District, Parish Council and the Press
    were invited on April 16 1996.  On May 10 1996 the decision was
    made by this committee that all of the remaining mature trees should
    be felled, and replanted with a new line of  beech.

12. Objectors to the decision commissioned an independent survey and
    report by an experienced landscape architect and a tree surgeon.
    This identified that only 9 trees need to be felled, and that limited
    tree surgery is needed on some of the remainder.

13. A public meeting was held on 27 June 1996.  As a result of this,
    because of a petition of over 3500 names objecting to the proposed
    felling, and in the light of the survey commissioned by the
    objectors, the Board of the National Park Authority referred the
    issue back to the Park Management Committee to reconsider their
    decision.

14. The report and letters from objectors were presented to the
    Committee at their meeting on July 19.  They were also advised that
    there are likely to be bat roosts in some of the trees, and that these
    are protected by law unless the particular tree is unsafe.  They were
    recommended to fell only those trees currently believed to be
    dangerous.  After extensive debate they decided not to alter their
    earlier decision that all the trees should be felled and a new row
    planted.

15. This decision was based on the advice obtained from the more
    highly qualified and experienced consultant from the AAIS, that 26
    trees are in a dangerous state.  Members of the Committee also felt
    that the tree surgery work required to make the remaining trees safe
    would leave them disfigured and not as people remember the
    Rusland Beeches once were.  They felt that the time has now come
    to fell all of the remaining trees and to replant a new row for the
    benefit of future generations.

16. The Forestry Authority have recommended approval to the
    application for a Felling Licence.

17. A detailed inspection was carried out in the first week of September,
    using an endoscope, to locate any bat roosting sites.  This report
    awaited. (as of 13/9/96 )

18. A Tree Preservation Order was placed on these trees in 1954 by the
    National Park Authority.  Applications to lift TPOs are normally
    dealt with by the National Park, but as in this case we are also the
    applicant we decided to ask the Department of the Environment to
    consider this request as an independent authority.   Their reply is
    awaited. (as of 13/9/96)

19. If you wish to contact the DoE about the application to lift this
    TPO you should write to Mr S A Macdonald, Government Office
    North West,  Sunley Tower, Picadilly Plazza, Manchester M1  4BE.

Guy Weller, LDNPA, Septenber 1996