🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <32404948.5F27@compuserve.com>,
LDNPA <100063.3401@compuserve.com> wrote:

>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.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>
>Guy Weller, LDNPA, Septenber 1996

A very important phrase from above is: -

>     This decision was based on the advice obtained from the more
>    highly qualified and experienced consultant from the AAIS,

This a very questionable statement as the following will illustrate. Roger
Cartwright being  "the more
    highly qualified and experienced consultant" with 40 years of practical
experience of saving trees. 
Derek Patch's experience is mainly academic over 20 years in areas
unrelated to predicting *tree survival*.

The following article focusses on the two contrasting views on the danger
from mature trees and the backgrounds of the experts that have presented
the reports to the Lake District National Park Authority .

The Lake District National Park Authority (LDNPA)  will decide whether to
go ahead with cutting down all fifty four of the famous 200 year old
Rusland Beeches at their meeting of the full Board  on October 1st.

If this decision goes ahead, it has grave implications for the rest of the
country and will send shock waves all over Britain to those that have
mature trees overhanging either roads or public footpaths with a right of
way.  It will say that similar action of felling apparently safe beautiful
trees is not only permissible but desirable if there is the remotest chance
of  the public being  injured as they travel or move close to them. A study
of this area of Risk Analysis is  urgently needed.

This overriding issue in this decision has been that of public safety and
the liability of the LDNPA to accusations of being responsible for a line
of �dangerous� trees that adjoining a lane with low levels of traffic. The
recommendation that has been made is the result of a forceful Chairman, Mr
Steele Addison and the opinion of the expert Derek Patch who is Director of
The Arboricultureal Advisory and Information Service (AAIS). Mr Patch has
published many papers. None of them are directly related to taking
preventative measures with trees. He has about twenty years experience most
of which is academic.

Organisations and Board members feel they are in no position to reject
Derek Patch�s recommendations because of his position and experience
especially as he also prepared a similar report in 1984. They appear to
regard the alternative report prepared by Roger Cartwright as lacking the
authority of a person of Derek Patch�s standing.

The �Save the Rusland Beeches� Campaign commissioned this report from one
of only a dozen  experts in the country who have qualifications and
experience as both Foresters and Landscape Architects. Roger Cartwright is
able, not only  to present the viewpoint on the trees themselves but their
amenity value to the landscape.

Roger Cartwright  has forty years experience in making judgments about
trees.He has taken responsibility for and implemented his judgment  in 
treating trees so that they remain safe throughout Northern England. He had
a position of great responsibility in the County Councils of Lancashire,
Northumberland and Cumbria were he advised on the landscape value of trees
and made judgements as to their safety and what measures needed to be
taken. This work extended to Parish councils and land owners. He has also
followed up his predictions of tree safety to check these were fulfilled. 

The heart of the issue is what is considered to be a dangerous tree and
whose judgment to trust.

Derek Patch has a very conservative view which is illustrated by his
judgment that nine of the Rusland Beeches are dangerous even though he
agrees there is no likelihood of them falling on the adjacent road but
would fall away into the wood . He argues that  �the public are �invited�
into the adjoining woodland and as such the risk the trees pose to them
while in the woods, although small, cannot be ignored�. (Page 1 of
�Observations on Roger Cartwright and Andrew Lee�s report).

If this extreme view were shared by other authorities such as the
Corporation of London then thousands of trees in places such as Epping
Forest would be classed as dangerous and if they chose to follow Derek
Patch�s view should be felled.

Clearly Derek Patch takes a view which is at one extreme of concern for
safety and out of line with most organisations that have trees in their
care for the public to enjoy. He wishes to remove every possibility for
harm to result from a tree. His desire to achieve perfect safety is
reflected in his opinion on the rest of the trees where he recommends that
�the safe and most positive treatment would be to fell all of the trees and
replant a new avenue�. One feels that his position as Director of the AAIS
influences him to make sure his recommendations cannot be shown to be wrong
by felling trees which have the slightest suggestion of a hazard. 

This view is not shared by the great majority of the public which is why
over 3,200 people signed petitions to Save The Rusland Beeches,  many have
written (figure known by the LDNPA) , 87 attended a public meeting called
by the Campaign to which members of the Board  and officers went and
certainly not by Roger Cartwright with his wide experience of preventative
tree surgery who recommends that no more than nine trees should be felled.