Tag Archives: government

TPO trees in Wolverhampton

One of our customers received a letter from Wolverhampton council requiring them to remove all branches overhanging the highway up to a height of 5.2m. The beech tree was overshadowed by a sycamore growing next door forcing the beech to grow away from the sycamore and out over the road.

The large limb projecting over the road held a lot of weight and the tree looked out of balance, heavily weighted on the road side. To prevent the limb, or even the whole tree, from failing and falling across the road we decided a reduction was needed.

The leaning stem and right hand limb could be a future problem. With the tree heavily weighted over the public highway a reduction was conducted to keep the tree from failing in the future.

We applied to Wolverhampton council to work on the tree which was protected by a tree preservation order (TPO). Such an order requires owners to seek planning permission before conducting any work on the trees covered by the order¹.
A few weeks later we were granted permission to reduce the whole tree by a third and further reduce the large road side limb to reduce its weight.

We removed as much as we could from the top and road side of the tree without affecting the tree’s long term health. Climbing the tree to perform the reduction allowed us to perform a full aerial inspection of the tree. Some squirrel damaged and cross rubbing branches were removed but other wise the tree appeared in good health

Beech tree after a 30% reduction

By reducing the tree we have help move the centre of gravity back towards the main stem. We have also reduced the amount of weight over the road and the smaller size has reduced wind loading across the crown. We left sufficient growth points to allow the tree to continue to grow long into the future.

¹ There are exceptions where permission is not needed. Removing deadwood is one such exemption. Please feel free to contact us for some free advice about your tree

Save our forests – The debate continues

Forest Access User Group’s joint statement to the Bishop of Liverpool James Jones:

The Forest Access User Group believes that protecting and enhancing public access to our woodland and forests must be at the heart of the Panel’s work. Following the huge public outcry which resulted in the consultation on the future management of the Public Forest Estate being “put on hold”, and the temporary suspension of Forestry Commission land-sales, we believe that the Panel now has the opportunity fully to realise the multi-purpose function of our woodland and forest estates.

As the Secretary of State made clear to the House of Commons when announcing the establishment of the Independent Panel in the House of Commons on 17 February 2011,

“It is important that the panel looks at all forms of access, including access for walkers, riders and cyclists,” and “We want to expand access to our forests and woodlands because it is in everyone’s interests that we do so.”

The Public Forest Estate makes up only 18% of England’s woodland and forests but accounts for 44% of our accessible woodlands. With the public making over 40 million visits a year to the Forestry Commission Estate, the Commission is the single, largest provider of countryside recreation opportunities and provides some of the best examples of welcoming, well-managed public access in England, which any private landowner would be hard pressed to match.

This cherished national asset therefore needs to be protected for public access in all forms, be it on foot, bike, horseback, horse-drawn carriage or with a dog, helping to strengthen the public’s understanding of the natural environment. Woods and forests must also continue to bring clear physical and mental benefits to the public by remaining fully accessible.

The Forest Access User Group looks forward to giving further evidence to the Independent Panel on the value of our woodland and forests for public access and urges the Panel to take the opportunity fully to develop appropriate forestry and woodland policy in England which delivers benefits to both public access and wildlife.

Sign up to support the Forest Access User Group’s statement that:

This cherished national asset needs to be protected for public access in all forms, be it on foot, bike, horseback, horse-drawn carriage or with a dog, helping to strengthen the public’s understanding of the natural environment. Woods and forests must also continue to bring clear physical and mental benefits to the public by remaining fully accessible.

To support the above statement visit the Ramblers website

Save England’s forests, stop the big sell off.

3 Replies

The Forestry Commission was created by the government after the first World War to ensure Britain would have enough timber in any future wars. Unfortunately World War 2 came a little too soon as the new plantations were too young to be harvested. Of course, the Forestry Commission continued to manage our Forests to the benefit of the country, it’s environment, wildlife and society. The Commission manages 250,000 hectares of land which is enjoyed by walkers, mountain bike and horse riders, families and bird watchers to name but a few. In fact, it’s forests receive 40 million visits a year from all sectors of society

It now appears that this is now under threat as the government plan to sell up to all of the Forestry Commission estate.

The government has today released a consultation about selling some of the woodlands it owns to the private sector. As you can imagine this idea of loosing woodland to private individuals has not been received well by the public and local communities who use the Forests.

Under the plans some of the forests will be deemed as ‘heritage forests’ which will have all of their access rights preserved. It is proposed that these could be given to charitable trust to manage but no charities have yet been named who could fulfil such a large task. Local charitable organisation could also run their own local forest how they see fit, this fits in with the government’ s ‘big society’ idea. Some forests already have ‘friends of..’ organisations which are involved in the management of their local forest with the Forestry Commission.

So if some of the forests are to be given away the government will not generate any revenue from the sale and funds will be made available to organisations so it begs the question ‘Whats the point?’

Other woodlands, particularly commercial plantations, would be leased so that access is preserved and the government can still have some degree of control over the land. The government states it would therefore have an income form the lease of land but would, i presume, loose the revenue generated from timber sales. Then there is the issue of subsidies which are already paid to the private sector. Whilst the government may reduce it running cost of the Forestry Commission it is possible that the subsidies it pays out will increase.

Those against selling say that public access could be threatened and private land owners will try to prevent access to woodlands or will to the very least possible to maintain public access. There are also fears for the biodiversity of the land.

Jim Paice, Environment Minster, talking on Radio 4 this evening stated ” The consultation we announced this morning is based on the idea that we want to involve the public and the community much more in how our forests are owned and Managed. If we wanted to do this just for financial reasons we would have put the whole lot up for sale and taken the highest bidder.” He went on to confirm that access rights will be preserved in a written legal format or “there will be no deal.”

Campaign groups have been springing up across England to oppose the sale of their local public forests including Save Lakeland’s Forests, Hands off our Forests in the Forest of Dean, Save Thetford Forest and Save Cannock Chase.

Over 250,000 people have signed the online petition at 38degrees.org.uk

How much is a forest worth?

Can you put a price on a rain forest? Well apparently you can according to research by the Kenya Forest Research Institute (KEFRI) and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).

The UNEP sponsored project has been looking at Kenya’s Mau Forest, the larget forest in the country (and one of the largest in East Africa) and how it benefits the economy. The forest has an ability to provide water and generate rain which is worth vast sums of money.

The economic benefit of the forest has been placed at $1.3 billion per year, a figure which will put into conservation in the spot light and give governments great incentives to protect such natural assets. Unfortunately the Mau Forest has been subject of fierce logging and clearance operations over the last few decades which has reduced the forest by at least 40% in size.

Lake Nakuru National Park

Twelve rivers originate in the forest, located in the rift valley. These rivers flow across Kenya providing water and hydro-electricity which meets half of Kenya’s electricity demand. Part of the Sondu River flows through a Japanese-funded hydro-electric power station generating up 6% of Kenya’s electrical supply. Conservation of the forest is vital for the power station to continue. It is calculated that the forest is worth $131.6m to the electricity sector.

Tea plantations also benefit greatly from the Mau Forest. Tea is one of Kenya’s key exports and the study calculates the forest contributes $163m a year to tea industries. Without trees there is no rain and during dry spells the tea plants dry up at the cost of peoples livelihoods.

Lesser and Greater Flamingos at Lake Nakuru

Down stream the forest lies Lake Nakuru, one of six lakes fed by the forest. Lake Nakuru is famous for it large population of stunning pink flamingos. Many people are attracted to Kenya for such sights making tourism big business within the country. It is not only the flamingos which attract tourists. People come to see a whole raft of animals including zebras, warthogs, baboons and even black and white rhinos. The benefit to tourism is placed at $65 million.

The forest also holds an estimated $89 million worth of benefit in storing carbon and helps control soil erosion to the value of $98 million.

Speaking to the BBC Jacob Mwanduka, of Friends of the Mau Forest Watershed (FOMAWA), said the forest “is leading the ecosystem of the country, supporting a third of the country’s population.”

“Without water, there is no life. And without forests, there is no water.

“It’s as simple as that. It’s painful that we are losing our forest, so we need to act now.”

UNEP’s executive secretary, Achim Steiner, told the BBC “If we destroy the forest we compromise natures ability to provide us with regular water suplies. These are very simple but very powerful and vital services nature provides for us. Without them we either cannot survive or have to spend a lot of money in finding alternatives”. Mr Steiner hopes that by having hard numbers for the value of nature people will change the way they think about it.

The main cause of the destruction of the forest is it 20,000 families. Some live a sustainable hunter-gatherer lifestyle while others have cleared parts of the forest to make room for settlements. Aware of the pressures it faces, the Kenyan government is committed to conservation of the forest and it has controversial plans to relocate the inhabitants of the forest.

This raises many difficult questions such as where will the people go and how will they survive in their new locations? How should they be compensated? And what about the many illegal settlers who have moved there in recent years.

A fine balance needs to be sought between the needs of the natural world and its long-term ability to support the economy against the needs of a developing country and its inhabitants who are struggling to survive.

Historically, in similar predicaments, nature has lost out. However there is currently a Conference on Biological Diversity in Nagoya, Japan which hopes to address many issues around biodiversity such as why governements fail to meet their own targets