Tennisgate. The Apology.

WTTs

Works to Trees - a wee short story for a wintry February day

Well what a palaver in recent times about trees. 

Water Tower Wood hosts lots of trees which I actively manage, to the extent of passing a basic chain saw course to make sure I can safely manage some of the smaller trees myself.

The bigger trees are for the experts though.

Late 2019 and at the start of 2020 we had discussion with our neighbours the Dalkeith Lawn Tennis Club. DLTC. They alerted us to the problems with our larger trees encroaching into the fence line, and also the issue of pigeon poo on the courts from pigeons sitting in the branches of a large Beech tree. The pigeon poo might be a health hazard they thought and I suggested they seek the advice of Environmental Health. Didn’t hear anything back on that suggestion so I’m not sure if DLTC took up any enquiry.

In December 2019 DLTC, Gerry and I and 2 officers from Midlothian Council met on the tennis courts to discuss “works to trees” (WTTs), as they are called by the Council when they are registered on the Planning Portal. 

The Council officers offered advice on the legality of the process of seeking approval for WTTs. In effect, the approval comes from the owner of the tree, not the Council. For the large Beech tree, the advice offered was not to cut anything more than very small branches within the back line of the Courts. The officer suggested seeking the agreement between both parties via an independent arboriculturist who could ratify the works as best practice. 

On Jan 8^th 2020 a WTTs planning application was lodged on the MC Planning Portal with 3 documents. An application, a Validation check and 1 other (can’t remember). The application wasn’t complete because there was no detail on what actual tree works were planned. The application contained a number of errors as well. Such as – that works were being carried out on behalf of Gerry and I, that we had consented the works and that the works were to a TPOd tree/group of trees for TPO 4 of 1994.

Perhaps most concerning about the application, was a tick box stating the health and safety of the tree(s) were in question, but without the detail of what works were being applied for, what tree was considered a health and safety risk? If this tick box exercise was being levied at trees under our ownership then that’s not correct. I gave the club the benefit of the doubt and Gerry e mailed the President to seek some discussion.

By Jan 28^th the documents on the WTTs application had not changed, but we had a communication from the President providing info that Frontier Forestry documented for the proposed works. 

TREE WORKS AT DALKEITH LAWN TENNIS CLUB, CEMETERY ROAD, . DALKEITH, EH22 3DL 

A) DESCRIPTION OF WORKS 

Heading round clockwise 

1)  Neighbour’s Beech at SW corner by clubhouse – crown-lift to 5m over clubhouse with our pole pruners. 

2)  Neighbour’s Oak by clubhouse - crown lift to 5m with pole pruners. 

3)  Neighbour’s Beech at NW corner – crown-lift above fencing using ladders. 

4)  Neighbour’s 2 x Beech & Poplar – crown-lift above fencing using ladders. 

5)  Neighbour’s large Beech at NE corner – using rope access systems, reduce lateral spread of south crown from tennis courts to approx. the tennis court base line; so approx. 3m lateral reduction full height. 

6)  Your large Oak at east end of courts – remove major deadwood and check all primary branches and primary branch unions for splits, cracks and decay. 

7)  Council Hollies (approx. 7 distinct groups) on south boundary. For all Hollies within 4m of boundary fence we would reduce their height to approx. 3m to improve light levels. We would also sever the Ivy in the trees as this blocks the light too. We would chip all arisings with our tracked chipper on the Council walkway and spray the chip into the woodland. Any larger timber would be left in the woodland in habitat piles. 

The works then cover the trees under our ownership, trees under Midlothian Council ownership and a large Oak tree on the clubs grounds. 3 different owners. One tick box on the application form!

Without particular concern for the majority of the works, I e-mailed the President and cc’d to the Council, that the works planned for the large Beech tree were not being carried out on behalf of ourselves and more importantly had not been formally consented in writing. Certainly there was no health and safety risk.

Hi ******

I don’t think the planning portal will show the detail of the planned work to trees. What you sent on to Gerry isn’t on the system.

There are a number of errors in the application on the system which I have written to the officer about, after the application was registered on 8th Jan, and 2 weeks later there were no signs of any details being recorded. That is still the case today. I don’t think they like putting details on the planning portal about trees these days. It’s quite bizarre.

I’m not precious about any of this, the system is not fit for purpose, and it’s a Notification system anyway to allow time for the Council to “Make/Not Make a TPO”. 

Given the works proposed there’s not going to be a TPO sought.

What’s important is that we consent the works, and especially the works to the large Beech next to our home.

That would be best in writing, with a clear picture of the works to be carried out.

A photograph works well, with a dotted line around the proposed area of cutting.

Just for information, what’s wrong on the planning portal is the application states the works are required by ourselves and the club is carrying them out on behalf of us. That’s not right.

The document states that we have permitted the works, well that’s not strictly true, because we haven’t permitted anything in writing with the detail of the proposed works.

The portal ticks the box for health and safety of the trees which is a poor tick box system because of course, the trees are all perfectly healthy. Perhaps it covers safety risks arising from the tree branches that overhang, although I can’t see that myself. Is there really any health and safety risk?

The title quotes TPO 1994 but that TPO died with the large sycamore so that’s wrong as well.

The address has cemetry rather than cemetery. Hardly worth a hanging!

Could we get a signed agreement please for the large Beech tree and let the rest of the works progress as planned. 

Best

Susan

Dear ****** (MC Officer)

Re WTTs 20/00006 for trees at Cemetery Road, Dalkeith. Would it be acceptable to register this e mail correspondence and that below, on the application site please. Suitably redacted as required.

It covers the inaccuracies in the application form as submitted which may never be documented through the planning portal unless this correspondence forms part of the application history.

My concern is that works are assumed to be agreed to the large beech tree on our ground next to our home, which are not as clear as they could be. I am personally hopeless with measurements of branches from a line on the courts, and that is what we discussed on site in December and is recorded in an e mail to ourselves from the DLTC only yesterday, but this information is not and may never be, on the portal. I am asking DLTC for a photograph showing the extent of the cuts to the over hanging branches of the large Beech, to be absolutely sure that this tree is not cut to expose an area that could later become infected. The failure of this Beech tree puts our lives at risk after all. The original thoughts of DLTC were to cut much more of this tree to eliminate pigeon poo from the birds sitting on overhanging branches, but you pointed out on site that this extent of cut would not be acceptable.

I believe that customers of the WTTs application think that whatever is consented by this process is all that matters. What’s not evident to me is the clarity of the proposed works and the agreement of the owner of the trees. The latter is not the responsibility of the Council, whilst the application on the portal states that agreement has been given, it has not been given in writing and any verbal discussion in December is nothing more than that.

Many thanks

Susan

Reply from Council;

Good Morning Susan,

Thanks for the emails below.

As you correctly point out decision for a Work to Tree application in the Conservation Area only indicates whether or not the Council intend to make a Tree Preservation Order, and it does not override the applicant’s/ agents need to ensure that he or she has the approval of the tree owner.

As the allocated case officer I check through files uploaded by the administration team before making them public to ensure that the information does not contain any private information that should not be in the public domain. Owing to workload I have only just this week been able to check through the documents submitted for this  application.

I have made the existing documents public but there are not currently any photos on file. If any further information is received from the applicant or agent it will be uploaded to the file and made public once it has been checked as above.

And a further correspondence from MC on Jan 31^st.

Hello Susan,

Thanks for your email on the 29^th.

Just to let you know we are arranging to get the application form the above application corrected (ownership section).

I am out of the office next week so I am hoping the administration team will be able to help with this whilst I am away.

Best wishes

I considered making a Neutral comment on the Planning Portal for the WTTs application, and record the issues there. Ha. No longer can anyone put a comment on a WTTs application.

That’s probably quite the right thing to do. Because WTTs are a Notification and permission is neither given nor denied. Advice is given and the officer seeks to preserve the community value of trees. The officer has the remit to decide whether or not to make a TPO on any tree where an application is made for pruning or felling. Interestingly, East Lothian Council keep a register that the public may view on requests but do not upload WTTs in their planning portal.

The final decision was "not to make a TPO” which effectively consents the works by the Council. The report from the officer denied the request for spreading bark chip and wildlife piling on the Council owned land. 

Permission for the tree work was also framed within the need for a bat survey. Another hurdle along the way for DLTC. But also, the owner of the trees is responsible too. This one is still rumbling on but as the owner of the trees with this caveat on the works, I had to decline to consent DLTC since I don’t fancy being liable for works progressed without a bat survey, and I’m not invested in getting one carried out. Seems easier just to not consent and shift the onus of responsibility. This might change depending on what DTLC decide to do. 

Now you might wonder why I go to all the bother to write this up for a blog site. But then, when an FOI in 2019 revealed this, maybe you will see why.

So, in September 2018, someone wrote to the Council representing the DLTC, pointing out that I had yet another tree application registered for tree felling in the ancient woodland next to the tennis club. The author of the e mail goes on to supply a list of said trees for felling by “Goldwyre” and then states “ the above does not include trees felled without obtaining permission”. Interesting. That old chestnut. 

So let’s check the list provided. 17 trees, of which 8 are sycamores it says on the e mail. Let’s have a look at the details on the decision notices from the Council. 

2011 11/00266         The spindly ash tree damaged by deer or squirrels and a Gean leaning on adjacent trees that is top heavy, both will other trees to develop to their full potential, owners already carried significant new tree planting on the bank.  So 2 trees to be felled, neither were sycamore.

2012 12/00057         Following the woodland management plan and inspection by arboriculturist consultant, permission granted to fell 2 decayed and potentially dangerous sycamores which are self-seeded and sitting above the walkway from Cemetery Rd to the Glenesk Viaduct. So 2 Sycamores, at the back of the woodland, behind the tennis club house, above the public walkway, identified by a professional as dangerous. Had they fallen and injured the public, we would have been liable. But hey, lets list them in an FOI stating that we have felled 8 sycamores  between 2011 and 2018 and intimating something is awry with our woodland management. 

2012 12/00298         Well this is an odd one because the officers report is identical to the report for 12/00057. But in fact the application was for a sycamore, self seeded and growing on the land slip area. Felling recommended to preserve the steep bank here, leaving the tree roots though. Shame the officers report isn’t correct. Anyway, yep another sycamore. Dearie me…..

2013 13/00427         Felling the two Elm trees (1 + 2) will allow the large amount of young under- storey planting and natural regeneration room to develop fully. The Beech tree (4) is growing lopsided over the valley and is to have the two lowest limbs removed and the remainder branches overhanging the valley reduced by 50% in order to rebalance the tree and allow the adjacent Beech tree growing lower down the slope room to develop. The Ash trees (3) are poor specimens, self- seeded trees which are growing very close together and are heavily lopsided over the valley. Felling these two trees will allow the adjacent Yew tree room to develop. The Horse chestnut is suffering from rot at the base of the tree and the tree is to be crown thinned by 25% in order to prolong the lifespan of the tree. No replacement planting is deemed necessary as the owners have already carried out significant tree planting on the steep wooded slope including Ash and Rowan trees and this planting is now starting to get established. 

So no sycamore here. But lots of other work. Elm would die anyway, Beech being pruned for its own longevity, Ash poor specimens removed to allow a Yew to develop and some long term protection of a Horse Chestnut. Pretty good woodland management really. 

2015 15/00288         Ahhh this is the TPOd sycamore that was poisoned. Shame. Been reported at length in this blog site. Take a look and see what you think killed this tree. Oh and btw, this is the TPOd tree TPO 4 of 1994.

2016 16/00294         The three mature beech trees (1, 2 + 3) are to have the lower branches overhanging to steep river bank pruned back in order to rebalance the trees. The semi-mature beech tree (4) is lopsided over the steep river bank and is to be crown reduced by 30% to reduce the weight of the crown and to rebalance the crown. 

The two semi-mature sycamore trees (5 + 6) are self-seeded trees growing in competition with surrounding trees, one of the sycamore trees has died (5) and the other sycamore (6) is in serious decline. The two trees are to be felled in the interest of safety. 

The two mature sycamore trees (7 + 8) growing in the northern part of the site is to be crown reduced by up to 20% to reduce the wind sail effect on the trees when the mature sycamore tree growing opposite on Council owned land is being felled due to this tree being undermined by a landslip. 

Due to the dense tree canopy where the two trees are being felled no replacement planting is deemed necessary. 

I’m losing the will now but at last copy/paste is saving me having to type too much. 2 sycamores though. One is dead and the other in serious decline, felled in the interests of safety. Some crown reduction on sycamores that were impacted by works carried out by the Council on their adjacent land. The landslip area at Ironmills Steps.

2017 17/00062         T1: The felling of this early mature tree has been previously approved through WTT Application 16/00732/WTT so is not covered under this application. 

T2: Sycamore: This semi-mature sycamore is growing close to the boundary fence and in close proximity to the adjacent Poplar tree (T1) and also adjacent beech trees. The applicant would like to fell this tree in order to allow the two adjacent beech trees to flourish. Whilst semi mature and generally of good form and health, this tree is suppressed by neighbouring trees. Due to its location its contribution to visual amenity is limited to views from within Dalkeith Lawn Tennis Club and within the site itself. 

T3: This tree is a Lime which has been previously coppiced and shows re-growth rods. Several of the taller rods are crossing over and rubbing on each other creating a bark wound. This tree should be coppiced on rotation as per good forestry practice to allow re-growth from the base. 

T4: This Sweet Chestnut is showing unbalanced growth. The applicant would like to remove one limb which stretches towards the adjacent tennis club to create a better form, allowing the growth of the secondary branch to take over. 

Remember this one, especially the works to accommodate the sweet chestnut which was sending a major branch towards the tennis club fence. T1 was a Poplar tree that was on our ground that the tennis club applied to fell and that would have been possible. But then they just didn’t fell it. I re assessed and looking at the area around the Poplar, decided the Poplar was a one-off then requested to fell the next along the line at the fence, the Sycamore, instead of the Poplar, although both could so easily have been removed. Sycamore is considered a weed and it’s actually not native. But yeah, another sycamore. Help ma bob. The woodland must be devastated! It’s an acre and a half by the way. 

2017 17/00821         The young Cherry tree has been planted on top of a steep slope as part of a line of native hedge planting and has now outgrown its space. The semi-mature Lawson cypress is an ornamental shrub which has now outgrown its space and is furthermore being outcompeted by the adjacent Beech trees. 

Due to the dense tree canopy and the high number of young trees where the two trees are being felled, no replacement tree planting is deemed necessary. The owner has proposed to continue the hedge planting at the top of the slope and under-storey planting where the Cypress tree is to be removed. 

Nothing here now, let’s move along

2018 18/00710         Permission is sought to prune one tree and fell one tree as detailed in the accompanying arboricultural consultant’s report from Donald Rodger dated 20 August 2018, and shown in the uploaded photographs, growing within the woodlands of the above property. The approximate location of the two trees is marked on the uploaded Annotated site plan. 

I really have lost the will now. Woodland management isn’t easy but it really has paid dividends in our woodland. When the Council land landslip happened it was pointed out to me that a mature Elm had died on that ground some time back, that the tree would have died from the roots up, that the loss of tree roots would have impacted the steep bank and that no replacement planting had taken place. No woodland management at all. It’s the Council after all, they really don’t have the resource. Perhaps one good reason to sell off woodlands to those who can manage them. 

Someone asked me at the time of the land slip “how come your land didnae slip?”. Well I have no idea really. But then the Council land slip was all our fault according to some. Go figure.