| |
Have a word with insurers about tree troubles
• THE weather people just predicted a long hot summer.
People who have a street tree outside might consider giving it some water, particularly if it’s surrounded by road surface and paving.
The tree in front of us grew unchecked from 2000, ending up enormous.
Its roots sucked up so much water out of the clay soil that the street and pavement subsided. In 2004, we persuaded Camden’s highways people to raise the road and pavement to stop the flooding, but they subsided again within in 18 months.
Then in the hot July of 2006 the steps came away from our house, with cracks big enough to put a finger in, and various other damage. Camden’s tree inspector was shocked at the evidence, and agreed an immediate reduction of the tree.
Unfortunately the tree section failed to order the work, which wasn’t done until after the spring growth of 2007.
The reduction agreed for February this year didn’t happen either, so when it eventually gets done the tree will look like a scarecrow again.
The good news is our damage is no worse, as I’ve been giving the tree a couple of buckets of water daily around its base in the growing seasons of 2007 and 2008.
Some of our cracks have closed up, and the road hasn’t sunk any more. Conventional advice is to water near the end of the roots, but this isn’t possible when they’re covered in road and paving, and watering near the trunk seems to work just as well. But I’d have to advise others who have tree trouble just to get their insurance company to sue Camden, which is in fact what their officers advised me to do. Discussion doesn’t seem to work.
Insurers will demand tree removal and indulge in expensive and largely pointless underpinning. Camden will waste our taxes on lawyers, the New Journal will get angry letters.
It’s all a shame. London’s largely built on clay and our council should use a bit more common sense.
Mike Wells
Laurier Road, NW5
Benefits
• MAGGIE Milner (Letters, April 30) is incorrect in saying that “there has been an obsession about planting and nurturing trees anywhere and everywhere” and that trees are spreading “like triffids”.
The facts are that the number of trees is decreasing and many councils are removing trees because it makes their life easier. Her belief that trees make it rain, and cause the torrential downpours and flooding of recent years, has no validity.
Trees used to cover whole areas of this country, native deciduous varieties suitable to our climate. No one is suggesting planting the tropical trees that thrive in the rain forests.
Trees provide enormous benefit to city life and to our health, and the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages.
The danger from falling trees is minuscule and, if they are well maintained and properly pruned, trees are well suited to an urban environment.
They are one of the most important factors in reducing both air and noise pollution, by absorbing toxic particles from the air and dampening loud sound. While there is a place for the smaller, ornamental, trees, these have nowhere near the same effect. Trees also soften the appearance of hard city landscaping and create a calmer and more pleasant environment.
The abundance of trees in this area is one of the reasons why it, like other leafy areas of London, is so desirable.
Julia Meadows
Belsize Grove, NW3
Too large
• MAGGIE Milner (Letters, April 30) is so right.
I am unfortunate enough to live in a block where the light in summer is severely restricted by very large trees in full leaf.
The root system of these trees was so invasive that contractors had to dig up the main sewage gully to the block to saw off the invasive roots a couple of years ago.
This took several weeks of work all observed by the residents.
On complaining, a representative of the tree department arrived then reported that there was no root invasion, despite us all watching this for several weeks.
We all received a letter from this same department informing us that it was “policy” to plant the biggest trees in future. Note policy. No “consultation” And the head of trees informs us in this block that trees do not obstruct light!
Environmental policies are meaningless window dressing.
Norman Speight
Camden Street, NW1
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
| |
