Leading Arboricultural and Ecological Consultants

5 May 2010

19 Comments »

1. Another great seminar By Neville/TEP et al, as always very inspiring.

   Many thanks to all the speakers, especialy Vikki Bengtsson whos passion for biodiversity is something very dear to me also and i felt a little choked up by it. “When you spoke of crawling in there” I felt a great connection as i have spent many hours crawling about looking into rotten logs and moldy fungi brackets on hand and knee myself!

   Mutse atsi vikki!

   Vikkis message was undoubtedly the most important one of the day, which brings me to my principal thoughts on the discussions.

   Its clear that there is a wide array of goals and objectives within the groups, some are designers/architects with strict visions on an asthetic appeal, others a more fluid and organic landscape, then there are the biodiversity crew and even the historians that want to preserve these ancient landmarks for completley different reasons.

   There is of course a place for all these approaches, diversity keeps life interesting and there is as much beauty in a contemorary regimented line of clipped hornbeams as there is in a delapedated row of ancient beech that are teaming with deadwood pockets, fungi and invertibrate colonies.

   But with all of these standpoints, the most important consideration should be to bio diversity, to eco system services, toward enhancment of “natural nieghbourhood”

   This isnt just about protecting bio diversity, what use is an avenue of sterile Platanus to the flora and fauna of our great land? using native species and increasing avaliability of habitat will bring a diversity of life into towns that increasing generations of our children are missing out on.

   It is about more than trees, and or asthetics we are raising generations of children who are losing thier “natural empathy” because they have no experiance of these things. Children are born naturaly inquisitive, but this natural inclusionality for life is lost because of the lack of connection to nature in developing years.

   I am excited by the potential of the connections made today, lets all make sure we capatalise on this potential, lets not become pre occupied and relegate this day to a hazy memory.

   Somone spoke of the dilema of being understaffed to chase up developers, to enforce BS standars etc, those green plans that are in reality never met, these must be brought to account for thier shortsighted greedy natures.

   my suggestion is thus, that the Tree officers all compile a black list of those developers that fail to fulfill thier promises, that this list be connected to all planning stages and departments, and planning applications be denied on the basis of a scored system. pre warned of this developers and architects WILL sit up and take note. Bio diversity and mental health are high on agendas these days, i doubt it would be hard to defend such a system, based on the need of our government to save money rather than waste it pursuing rouge organisations.

   Food for thought?

   Comment by Tony croft — 24 June 2010 @ 8:19 pm

2. If tree officers followed the suggestion made by Tony Croft in his last paragraph, the road to the High Court would be beaten flatter and wider than it is now. There is no legislative backing for his suggestion and planning applications can only be refused on consideration of determined criteria. The mere compilation of a list of the type he suggests is likely to be illegal.

   My own experience is clear – tree officers are often keen to prosecute offenders and can often make a good case, but the Planning Authority’s lawyers ‘lose their bottle’ – hence the few cases of tree-related Planning infringment which come to Court. If Parliament didn’t mean tree protection to be taken seriously, they wouldn’t have given the power to impose heavy fines.

   Comment by Brian Crane — 2 July 2010 @ 8:30 pm

3. So Brian, what do you propose we do about these developers like tescos etc who sell an application with a great green plan only to find in reality they are far far and away not what was proposed at the planning stage?

   what framework exists to ensure these green portions are as important to the application and completion as building regs?

   you wouldnt get away with an unsafe build, so why be allowed to get away with a development that does not enhance the areas urban greenery?

   i merely offered an opening to discussion, after all that is what the space provided here is for.

   Comment by Tony croft — 4 July 2010 @ 12:30 pm

4. Hi Tony, firstly, I have no more brief than you for the kind of development you’re referring to – you haven’t mentioned the supermarket follow-up, which is to expand a few years later and remove most of what piddling planting they put in initially. The planting Peter Thurman showed at Poundbury shows what can be done – but then, I have noticed (and it has been confirmed by a number of studies, both here and abroad) that you can tell a well-off area by two things – mature trees and traffic calming.

   Unfortunately Planning Applications are usually determined by Local Councillors – if they don’t think greenspace is important, then they should be advised/converted and in 4 years time you’ll have to start with another lot! I agree that if planting is specified as a Planning Condition, then it should be followed up (enforced) and this is where the will to do so(not from arboriculturists I should state) is lacking. The question of aftercare would prompt an avalanche of comment I’m sure.

   Design guides are published and Local Development and Unitary Plans set policy (as I’m sure you know), however, it is not unknown for a development plan to be altered after approval with only officer agreement. I did the intial assessment and tree protection advice on a project where great care was taken of trees in a woodland. The site agent was taken sick and his replacement dug a service trench which damaged a number of TPO trees – Council notified – no action taken.

   I have serious doubts about the unconsidered use of ‘native’ species in the ‘deep’ urban environment – many of them do not tolerate such conditions well. Incidentally, studies by the US Forest Service in New York indicated clearly that London plane was the most efficient species for carbon capture and sequestration, in addition to its well documented role in removing airborne pollutants. Norway maple came second. My view – if you can get trees, of appreciable size, which will make a contribution, into an urban area where nothing else will survive – then plant them – regardless of the species.

   Few thoughts. All the best, Brian C.

   Comment by Brian Crane — 4 July 2010 @ 2:03 pm

5. Add-on – where I get the chance to specify natives in an appropriate setting – e.g. school grounds, then I do so – always. BC.

   Comment by Brian Crane — 4 July 2010 @ 2:06 pm

6. An excellent and stimulating seminar (not harmed by an absolutely delicious lunch and amble around a sunny Kew Gardens).

   The seminar subject matter encompassed many issues relating to a broad range of ‘avenues, alleys and boulevards’ but I was particularly interested in the management options for the older classic avenues where the uniformity of age and spacing is beginning to be lost. The dilemma of managing such features was brought into sharp focus by the speakers’ valid though differing opinions.

   Tony Kirkham and Peter Thurman showed how grabbing the bull by the horns and felling and replanting ageing avenues might be appropriate in some circumstances.

   Ray Hawes gave examples of different National Trust avenues under differing management regimes – from a Sweet Chestnut avenue being allowed to fall apart, to a mature Beech avenue under a regime of intensive inspections, removals and in-fill planting.

   Clive Mayhew gave a deliberately provocative view that avenues were in fact a fairly monotonous and dull landscape features that might be left to become linear woodlands – a living archaeology of past landscaping styles – (but Clive, whilst they might have limited appeal in landscape views, I think you missed the point that they are primarily designed for passing through).

   We were also reminded of the ecological and cultural value of these older avenues and even given a suggested financial value in Euros per mile.

   It was clear that an appropriate management regime will depend very much on the perceived current and future value of the avenue and that that can differ markedly depending on your perspective.

   It was interesting hear that Kew felt obliged to remove one avenue in the dead of night in an attempt to reduce any public outcry. On the one hand, I can understand this as any public consultation is almost bound to result in compromise and Kew’s agenda is principally botanical and landscaping (& safety) – objectives perhaps better achieved by dictator rather than consensus. Conversely, the National Trust for example, as guardians of national treasures, should consider other values including historic and ecological values, safety and public opinion.

   I live close to the magnificent two mile Beech avenue at Kingston Lacy in Dorset. This is a roadside avenue that understandably causes the National Trust safety concerns. The Trust appears to have accelerated the rate of intervention with the removal of some twenty trees a couple of years ago and, I understand, further removals planned. This example typifies the dilemma of avenue management and it would make a fine ‘case study’ for debate. The trees are old pollards and, as Ray mentioned, have been subject to some poor past management. They have significant ecological benefits, are a fantastic visual amenity attracting visitors and photographers. They have historic interest, there are perceived safety issues and, being some of the most intensively scrutinised trees in the country, currently not insignificant cost issues. It would be enlightening if, at the next seminar, speakers of different specialisms were to include consideration of this avenue and its various benefits, perceived risks, costs and future and to weigh the management options. The current Trust position of launching a ‘celebration of the avenue’ in anticipation of its loss, references to a Beech life expectancy of 170 years (the age of the avenue), the inherent instability of Beech and the stresses of climate change have the unfortunate air of sophistry to deflect adverse public opinion from accelerated felling (they haven’t Kew option of felling over night) and precludes inter-planting with replacement Beech. An appraisal of benefits and risks from various speakers of different specialisms at the next seminar would touch on all aspects of avenue management and might assist the Trust in formulating a strategy that can be candidly released to the public who have, after all, a legitimate interest.

   Comment by John Hearne — 15 July 2010 @ 4:53 pm

7. I was very pleased to be asked by Nev / TEP to speak at this conference and very sorry I had to leave at midday.

   I enjoyed Brian Crane’s presentation that gave a great insight into the cultural significance of avenues.

   During questions Brian made it clear that he was not an advocate of clear felling [an avenue deemed to be an important landmark]. He suggested that in-fill specimens / replacements would soon ‘catch-up’ and no one would notice the difference within one or two generations.

   I am not convinced. Gapping-up say, a 200 year old avenue of lime trees [even with quite mature stock] will never provide the uniformity of the original avenue – both in stem girth and crown form/shape. Also, such gapping-up would probably have to be repeated from time to time so there could be a range of age classes between 10 and 350 years.

   I also enjoyed Vikki Bengtsson’s talk. I am fully aware of the importance of avenues as wildife habitats and that, on many occasions, their management and conservation as such should be the main objective and priority. Over the last 20 years arboriculturists and landscape architects have learnt a great deal from ecologists etc about trees. I understand and accept what they have taught us.

   But, it seems to me to be a very one-sided relationship and a very one-way absorbtion of ideas and concepts.

   Why is this the case? Why is there a tendancy [in my opinion!]for some ecologists / mycologists etc to be so blinkered and myopic when it comes to considering [some] avenues as important landmarks?

   In my personal experience I’m afraid some have come across as evangelical bullies who just won’t listen to alternative thought processes. This is most regrettable. I embrace them but sadly it is seldom reciprocated.

   Vikki suggested [or said someone else had suggested] that many of the great avenues were designed for or by middle-aged, sexually frustrated males.

   Historically, “middle-aged” and “male” is probably true but “sexually frustrated”…….? I’d better stop there!!here!

   Comment by Peter Thurman — 18 July 2010 @ 12:13 pm

8. Peter’s right of course, an important aspect of an avenue is its uniformity and there are times when complete replanting is the best answer – the 3.5 mile avenue at Wimpole Hall is an example. I kept off management deliberately as I felt there was not enough time to deal with it, but it should be noted that in the one case study I presented I recommended complete replacement. I am also very aware that complete removal of an avenue in the urban realm can lead to pressure for an alternative use of the land. I agree completely with Peter that where there are extremes of age within a planting, then uniformity is lost.

   I thought that one thread the seminar drew out was the importance of the urban boulevard/avenue and its relevance to everyday life and the (to me) much greater cost/benefit ratio gained from such features vis a vis the ‘stately home’ avenue. I feel that the problems of urban avenue management would make a very worthwhile seminar subject with a clear audience in local authority tree officers and the people they interface with.

   I love the idea of sexually frustrated Dukes clad in wigs and robes rushing out with spades to plant avenues!

   Comment by Brian Crane — 21 July 2010 @ 9:53 am

9. • Presumably the theme will come from developing some of the issues raised in 1 and especially those raised in the last two afternoon sessions?

   • For me it is still how to achieve that holy grail of integrated, joined up thinking particularly in a new planning environment and with the challenges of climate change (well demonstrated in the recent heat )!

   • There are so many players and publications. TDAG member, Les Round, has put together a draft chart and document list on this for the TDAG web site.

   • An example of where a more integrated approach would be very valuable is demonstrated by Manual for Streets and Manual for Streets 2 prepared by WSP for the Department for Transport and an influential document on road design etc…one of the key places for trees in avenues, boulevards and streets and one of the key opportunities for increasing canopy cover. There is a very short section on trees in MfS when I counted at least 30 pages where it would be relevant to mention trees as a key element and MfS2 may get a little more..

   • Trees and subsidence particularly in Victorian parts of our cities with shallow foundations and shrinking clay soils.

   • Trees and utilities – the real elephant in the room… how are we going to get improvement here? NJUG etc is a perfectly good start, in many ways, but limited and not enforceable! The excellent Landscape Below Ground III promoted by Gary Watson at the recent Barcham Seminar has lots of interesting papers on these issues including tree root penetration into modern pvc and concrete sewer pipes.

   • We need adequate soil volume to allow trees to grow to maturity, we need mature trees for canopy cover, both of these are contradicted by highways design and maintenance requirements and utilities! If we are not careful, geo-engineering solutions will gain the day despite the fact that trees provide so many more benefits!

   • Cost-benefit analysis…I am pinning a lot of hope on this as it is potentially the most persuasive argument that I can think of for supporting the case for urban trees.

   Comment by Sue James — 21 July 2010 @ 9:55 am

10. ‘Deliberately provocative’ never! But one of my points was precisely that avenues ARE primarily designed for passing through – either physically or visually – and that in aesthetic terms are good for little else.
    They are simplistic, ‘one trick ponies’ within the tree design palette, which have the potential to obscure, divide and compartmentalise landscapes for those who want to do anything else other than pass through a pair of green walls.

    Comment by Clive Mayhew — 22 July 2010 @ 11:07 am

11. Clive is a good friend of mine, a colleague and the co-presenter of a seminar that we run on ‘Designing with Trees’. He is deliberately provocative. You can imagine what the seminar day is like!
    To comment on his comments!
    Yes, that’s what we do – pass through avenues. But, I quite like doing that!
    Yes, they are one-trick ponies and simplistic. But, that is their secret. Many bold and exciting landscapes / buildings / sculptures / land art are one-trick and simplistic – designed and constructed with a very great sense of purpose and singleness of thought.
    Yes, avenues can obscure, divide and compartmentalise. But, that usually occurs in the future when the original concept / reason for the avenue has been lost or forgotten and the avenue is now managed by a bickering committee who only agree to meet up again to continue bickering!

    Comment by Peter Thurman — 23 July 2010 @ 9:42 am

12. “Yes, that’s what we do – pass through avenues. … Yes, they are one-trick ponies and simplistic. …
    Yes, avenues can obscure, divide and compartmentalise. “
    My main preoccupation before the seminar was to work out how I could even begin to air such seemingly heretical notions in a public forum.
    And now the core premises at least are ringingly endorsed by Mr. Thurman. … I’m beginning to feel my work here is nearly done!

    Comment by Clive Mayhew — 23 July 2010 @ 12:23 pm

13. Sue’s blog points up many of the reasons for taking the urban boulevard subject further. The question of highways needs, underground utilities and limited and degraded soil volume, together with bulk density are all issues which affect the establishment and vitality of urban trees. I think we must be careful not to veer off (and dilute) the subject here, because an ‘urban tree’ is any tree in an urban area, and the benefits conferred by some plantings are different to those conferred by trees in an urban street or road avenue. The benefits provided (per tree) by these trees are likely to be higher than (say) those provided by trees in parks because of the intensity of everyday usage. The difficulties of management are also going to be more extreme.

    Comment by Brian Crane — 26 July 2010 @ 12:59 pm

14. “they are one-trick ponies and simplistic. …”

    Clive, Clive, Clive, a one trick pony? You must come to my neck of the woods and journey through the Kingston Lacy beech avenue. Come on a bright spring day when an aqueous light filters through the fresh translucent leaves and there is a sense of fluidity, of aquatic vegetation, of shifting light and shadow. Drifting through, you will be filled with a sense of wellbeing and calm. Or perhaps come in autumn when the blaze of yellow, gold and russet bedazzle and exalt the soul until, as the sun lowers, its refulgent glow wraps its warmimg arms around you and you return home replete. Or perhaps come in winter, as a slowly dissipating mist reveals the grey-green sheen of the smooth barked and wondrously bulbous trunks; sinuous elephantine limbs arch into the enveloping tunnel and, looking closer, you see that the air is scented by the occasional gargoyle tongue of a Dryad’s Saddle, a ladder of Oyster mushrooms, and the glistening milky white of Porcelain fungus. These last are the avenue’s death knell as the trees become deemed too risky. To many this is tragic because, Clive, to them it is more than a walk between two green walls.

    But seriously – and less waxy lyrically – we have heard of the many benefits provided by avenues and avenue trees and, to my mind, the theme would suffer for being too dismissive of their landscape value – and of the more intangible reasons I have tried to allude to, that people like them.

    Comment by John Hearne — 28 July 2010 @ 11:54 am

15. John, I never said the one trick wasn’t an impressive one….
    But, just like Peter above, you’ve eloquently illustrated my point within the content of your reply. Avenues can indeed be wonderful things in many ways to many people; a wonder generated by standing IN them, and /or possibly moving ALONG them.
    That IS precisely their one trick.
    I know avenues are nice, I know people like them. I’m just suggesting that they are not always the only, or always the best, use of trees within a designed landscape – rural or urban.

    Comment by Clive Mayhew — 28 July 2010 @ 5:08 pm

16. Standing atop Badbury Rings the Kingston Lacy avenue completely conceals the B3082, and its traffic, from view – a second trick for which I am grateful.

    But I do understand and accept your point Clive. I wouldn’t want them everywhere. I was really just amusing myself with a tongue in cheek rail against your heresy. But I’m glad we agree they can be impressive.

    Any advance on two trick unicorns?

    Comment by John Hearne — 29 July 2010 @ 1:03 pm

17. Good man John. Yet another convert stands at the heretical altar!
    Your comment ‘I wouldn’t want them everywhere’ is again interesting and leads the debate on to another level. Because: 1)There are many people who WOULD want them everywhere – and indeed said so at the seminar – we should perhaps be wary of those people.
    2)If they are not appropriate everywhere we need to work up an understanding of why that might be – division, obscuring, compartmentalisation of a larger landscapes perhaps – and by doing so realize there are other design options that are more sophisticated and interesting than planting multiple straight lines.
    Off on hols now so no more postings for a couple of weeks….

    Comment by Clive Mayhew — 30 July 2010 @ 1:11 pm

18. Hope you enjoyed your holiday Clive; I’m just back from mine – two weeks in the Loire (hundreds of avenues – oh joy!).

    Meanwhile, the discussion seems to be polarising towards two themes – first the value and management of avenues and, secondly, the broader subject area of the urban arborstructure, encompassing things such as climate change, underground services, street design and subsidence. There is a risk that the first could become something of a blind alleyway where agreement is difficult, whilst the second provides so many avenues to explore that the theme could become unwieldy and lose focus.

    I was struck by Peter Thurman’s apparent frustration with ‘bickering committees’ and ‘blinkered and myopic…. evangelical bullies’. Equally, I suppose, others would be frustrated by the single mindedness required to replicate an avenue by wholesale felling and replanting. There can be real difficulty in reconciling opposing views or comparing the merits of sometimes mutually exclusive benefits of differing management options. Times change and avenues change with them, trees age and die, fashions change, the tolerance of risk changes. Avenue management is the management of change, but an evaluation and direct comparison of the aesthetic, ecological, economic, historic, safety, climate etc. issues is no easy task. I think George W Bush had avenues in mind when he wisely said “I have opinions of my own – strong opinions – but I don’t always agree with them”.

    In law, bio-ethics and environmental ethics a casuistic approach is often used to reach the best decision with the available information (I mean casuistry in the more recently rehabilitated sense of the word rather than the pejorative ‘sophistry’ sense). I gather you begin with broad and, if necessary, pithy, principals that no reasonable person could dispute. Armed with these you compare your avenue to a number of paradigm cases, precedents or exemplars to aide the decision. Such an approach could well prove useful to avenue management and the production of broad principals would be a good start. It would then be interesting to consider case studies, preferably of ‘sensitive’ avenues (such as Kingston Lacy); perhaps with guidance from someone familiar with the casuistic approach and other expert advice on the issues relating to the particular avenues.

    I can predict Clive’s first suggested principal: There are alternatives to avenues that may have equal or enhanced value – (AKA the Python principal – ‘and now for something completely different).

    I suspect Peter Thurman would include the principal that ‘if we want everything to remain as it is, it is necessary that everything should change’.

    What other principals?

    Comment by John Hearne — 31 August 2010 @ 4:26 pm

19. Please let me know when the Part 2 is scheduled
    Regards
    Alessandro

    Comment by Alessandro Pestalozza — 4 October 2010 @ 5:42 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment