Trees in Mayfield Avenue

A Mr Gary Barnes appeared to talk about tree strategy in the Borough. He said that since a groundbreaking case in Westminster a couple of years ago councils are held fully liable for any tree or any part of a tree that can be proved to have resulted in – or contributed to – subsidence. The council are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on subsidence claims as a result of this.

Due to this situation if they get wind of any tree that looks like it is causing subsidence or has the potential to do so the council will remove it immediately without any consultation, save to say that it will be happening. However he did say that in such a situation the council has a policy of a one-for-one replacement, with a new tree.

It is for the potential exposure to subsidence claims that the council refuses to accept any requests for Tree preservation orders.

In the case of the tree at No.41 Mayfield avenue an application for removal for off-street parking was initially refused. However the residents then highlighted that the tree was dangerously leaning. The council tree surgeon Mr Alex Campbell inspected the tree and while confirming that it was healthy concurred that there was a future potential danger of it falling down and so the tree was felled. I have the report for those interested in reviewing it.

I chatted to Gary at the tail end of last week and he confirmed this story and said that a new tree would be planted but only during the latter of this year as it was pointless planting one during the summer months (I’m not a gardener, is this true?). He also said he would ask Alex to check on the other gaps in the street with a view to planting further trees and in the report he sent me Alex does talk about re-planting the gap on the opposite side of the road (40-42?) which was caused by a previous tree that was blown down during a storm.

While I am sympathetic to the council’s nervousness to exposure to huge claims there is a flaw here. Basically we have no way of challenging the findings of Alex Campbell. If he says the tree must come down then Gary – his boss – will invariably pass it for approval. Technically therefore Alex can be compromised in his decision-making by external forces and the local residents are screwed. I’m not saying this happens but is it not a coincidence that it was only when No. 41’s original application was refused that it was suddenly “discovered” that the tree was dangerous anyway? Also, with regards to the forthcoming Acton housing development, what’s to stop a truck “accidentally” ramming a tree to force Gary’s hand?

I think we need to investigate this further, seek an acceptance that we must be able to challenge the tree surgeons report as necessary and try and apply for tree preservation orders for certain key trees, such as the one in the middle of the roundabout at Mayfield.

I’m open to views here. I am aware that Helen Orpe has already made some moves by firing off questions to Gary etc. some of which have probably been answered here and I know that Benz Kotzen has had some dealings already with Alex Campbell re: a major tree in Pruden Close due for felling. Maybe we should arrange a get-together to discuss this further?
Anthony