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.

Deja Vu

Recent events here at water tower wood are a sense of deja vu, or a sense of "been there before".

Having at last found out how to link a previous post, here is a link to a post on Nov 2010 when the community were being asked by the council, what to do to save money.
Midlothian Cuts and More Hamlet!


If you can't be bothered clicking the link and reading the whole post, this is the most relevant section.....as far as recent matters at water tower wood are concerned.


At community council on Monday 22nd I requested time to put forward my case from the public side of the meeting. It went like this.

"Having heard the passionate pleas from a very stressed Head of Midlothian for budget cuts, I want this community to be aware of the possible waste of money in dealing with petty issues regarding our house build this last year". I went on to explain the possible costs as above. I then cited a number of examples -


1. Checking the legality of a perceived Right of Way - twice in 1998 and again in 2009.  This had a cost. Quite a bit of paperwork was generated on this issue - not to mention the character assassination that followed when we were accused of closing the public footpath down to Ironmills. 


Then there is an earlier post in Oct 2010 that records some useful information I think the events of a couple of days ago may be related to.  Proof That Land Was Advertised For Sale worth a read if you think that somehow we came to acquire the land around 2 sides of the tennis court "illegally" or without any advertisement by the council. 


In 2010 it was clear that a so called community group which called itself the Eskbank Amenity Society, with a constitution that documented their desire to foster good community relations, felt the need to become legal-eagles with regards to water tower wood, and lobbied the council for infringement of no build burdens by myself. I'm sure that at the time the community group were exploring some degree of corruption on my part because they seemed very keen to find some legal impropriety. They didn't find any, because there was none to find. 

Below is an extract from an article from the internet, on land burdens. A no build burden is anything from a Wendy House to a power station. They cannot be unreasonably enforced. There are many papers documenting Scottish Land Burdens and you will need a law degree to be able to appreciate the scope and litigation surrounding burdens. 

I have read them because they are quite fascinating to someone with a scientific mind. 

The council should have read them. 

If you are interested I can send you more links to legal process around land burdens, it is a fascinating subject; maritime burdens are interesting, then there are burdens that precent people keeping hens and pigs, there may even be some that prevent folks putting out a washing line.

E mail me on susangoldwyre@gmail.com if you want to know any more. 

Scotland - Real burdens

The concept of restrictive covenants does not exist in this sense within the Scottish legal system. The Scottish equivalent is a real burden, which is a type of title condition. 

A real burden is an obligation on an owner of land (the owner of the 'burdened property') either to do something or to avoid doing something, for example not to build an extension. It will be enforceable by the owners of 'benefited properties' and the presence of a real burden can sometimes, but not always, be found by an examination of one's title deeds. The law here is very complex and legal advice should be sought when determining whether a real burden exists. 

Real burdens come in a variety of types, but are most commonly found in cases of plot subdivision or as 'community real burdens' where a developer has bought a large plot of land, built an estate on it, and then sold off the individual plots. Real burdens can be extinguished in a number of ways, including 

• By agreement 
• By the Lands Tribunal of Scotland 
• By breach – if a) the owners of any benefited properties acquiesce by not objecting, or b) no-one has an interest to enforce the burden, or c) a number of years pass – this is called 'prescription'. 

Real burdens can be difficult to enforce. The main problem is that, while they are required to be registered on the title of the property which is burdened, there is no requirement for them to be registered on the title of the property benefiting. This means that a person can hold enforcement rights without realising it, and so will not take the necessary steps if the burdens come to be breached. There is a notification procedure if one wishes to get the agreement of one's neighbours to breach a community real burden. This involves notifying all the owners of properties within a given area of one's intentions.

Right of Way

Bit of a challenge at water tower wood today with a guy claiming a right of way along the top of the river bank, past our home. It wasn't a friendly intervention, not claimed in any spirit of wanting to walk it for interests sake, which I am always open to for anyone who might like to see the woodland and the views across the park. The train crossing the viaduct is also a sight to behold, I'm always willing to let people in to see this.

Re the right of way, I remember the conclusion written up by the Scottish Government reporter when our appeal was upheld in 2010. There is no right of way on our land and never has been.

There used to be a public short cut path, but it was never more than that.

Before we built our lovely home on the ground, the council had formally blocked access to this short cut path. I remember one time when our neighbours son cycled along the path and fell down the embankment. The fire service were called to rescue him.

So when someone comes onto your land, is that trespass in Scotland?
I found this useful article.

https://www.thompsons-scotland.co.uk/blog/33-main/2527-are-there-really-no-trespassing-laws-in-scotland
______________________________________________________

It is an oft-repeated myth that there are no trespassing laws in Scotland.  This is simply not true.  Trespass is a civil wrong, called a delict in Scots legal terminology.

The origins of civil trespassing laws in Scotland go back centuries.  A court decision from 1791 in the case of Livingstone v Earl of Breadalbane states that “…every man is the proprietor of his grounds, and entitled to the exclusive possession of them… No man can claim a road or passage through another man’s property… without a servitude… for amusement of any kind, however necessary for health…”

You may think that this ancient case does not bear much relevance to modern living, but a person’s right to the full exercise of their property is protected by Protocol 1, Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  Although the court decision from 1791 is old, it accurately states the law.   

However, the waters were muddied by the introduction of what is commonly known as “the right to roam.”  Public access rights were created by the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.  This Act provides the public the right to be on and cross most land and inland water in Scotland in a responsible manner.  However, public access rights do not apply to the following places: 

• Houses, gardens and non-residential buildings and associated land
• Land in which crops are growing
• Land next to a school and used by the school
• Sports or playing fields (where exercising access rights would interfere with their use)
• Airfields, railways, quarries, construction sites and military bases
• Visitor attractions or other places which charge for entry

For a more extensive list of places where public access rights do and do not apply, see the Scottish Outdoor Access Code.

Where a member of the public accesses land which is not covered by public access rights, they are trespassing.  A court can therefore make an order to prevent trespassers from entering the land.  Breach of such a court order could become a criminal offence.  

However, land owners also have responsibilities.  If a member of the public is injured while exercising their public access rights, the land manager or owner could be liable for injuries sustained if they did not take adequate precautions to protect those on their land.

If you have concerns about trespassing, we recommend reading the Scottish Outdoor Access Code which provides guidance to landowners and members of the public. __________________________________________________________

Here is the evidence from the Scottish Government Reporter.

Extracted from this planning application 10/00694/DPP.

Decision by M J Culshaw, a Reporter appointed by the Scottish Ministers

• Planning appeal reference: PPA-290-2014
• Site address: RP9 The Water Tower, Cemetery Road, Dalkeith, EH22 3DL
• The development proposed: Erection of timber decking with storage beneath, erection of boundary fence incorporating a bin store, works to stabilise banking, alterations to path, formation of woodland access steps and erection of associated guard rails

J - APPEAL DECISION NOTICE (REPORTER'S FINDINGS)

Section 15.

15. The council have referred to the requirement of Policy RP9 that development within the river valley protection areas of the North Esk, South Esk and Tyne rivers should have a specific locational need. Since all these works are associated with a dwelling permitted by the council within the protected area it is difficult to see how the need for them could be more locationally specific. They clearly could not be carried out anywhere else. The policy further requires that locationally necessary development should not adversely impact on the landscape or conservation value of the valleys and I have concluded that it does not. It also requires that it should not impede potential public access opportunities, but since no public right of way is claimed and this is a dwelling curtilage where rights of access under the Land Reform Act 2003 do not apply no such opportunities exist, whatever may have been the case before the dwelling was built.

Couldn't do a blog post without some before and after photos. Took a wee while to find these but we start with Year 2000 when there was a garden gazebo on the site, then the sitooterie in 2010, followed by the latest change, the potting shed in 2018. 
We demolished the sitooterie and created a better path along the very steep edge of the gorge woodland. It looks much better now IMHO.

This is the path that the guy walked along yesterday. I love my path, I had to dig away a fair bit of the slope to help create it. That slope was an easy dig, the soil is akin to dust having been impacted by the blaise run off from years gone by from the tennis courts behind. Have taken the time to mulch and add planting to try to encourage root growth to aid stability.

In digging it out I exposed a pile of old bricks built as a chamber, probably an old cesspit/sewage tank in its day. 

No longer in use though. 



The brick structure was sitting directly above the historic landslip on this ground. I did blog about this previously in 2012. I can never work out how to do a link to a previous post so here is a copy/paste.

Planting season is here and once again I am hindered by something solid under the ground preventing access for new planting. This time I unearth an old field drain. It appears at the tennis club fence and then tracks underground a short way. It was full of soil but not carrying any water. Bone dry.

Interesting to see where this is. Above the area where the path was broadened a few years ago because the path at this corner was very narrow. Below the path is the section of the bank where there has clearly been land slip in the past. I suspect this old field drain may be part of the reason for the slip. Who knows.

Right now though the soil is dry and very easy to dig. Lots of crushed stone (blaise) in the soil which seems to aid drainage and I am told will be OK to support growth. Planting is Holly, Blackberry, Blackcurrant, Redcurrant, Horseradish, White strawberry (because the birds will not eat them!), Rhubarb and then some edge planting of ivy and fern to maintain the woodland feel. Its an area of the slope that has been bereft of plants other than self seeded grasses, weeds and a few wild flowers. The odd daffodil as well. This planting is to establish some edible woodland plants. Fingers crossed, the light levels are reasonable but it is North West facing.

The old drain pipe is now removed.

Susan Goldwyre
12th November 2012.


Update from my other half - "it can't be a field drain". There's no area to drain unless the tennis courts were cambered to that point or there was a herring bone drain system in place and there's no sign of that. More likely is that this was the septic pipe so maybe this is the pipe that served the septic tank that people tell us became blocked and took away a section of the hillside? Anyone got any more info?????


Water Tower Wood Land
Our water tower woodland ground of course was bought from the council, no doubt keen to offload the liability given they had attempted to block the short cut path, signed as "no access". But the signage and wire netting were often vandalised by those wishing to still walk here. 

Not dis-similar to the situation faced by the council again now. Since Ironmills Steps were blocked 5 years ago (opening for a short period before further landslip took place). The signage and fencing keeps being added to, in an attempt to stop people walking this ground. I still go there at times, accessing from my own ground and just to make sure the landslip isn't impacting on our ground. So far, so good. All looks well. 

At Ironmills Steps, there is still a water source to identify and the land is so damaged no weight bearing structures should be built onto it. A light weight set of steps may be possible I guess but that's up to the council. At the last Participation Group meeting the council agreed to add information boards to the site to let the public know what has happened and what is likely to happen next (if anything). 
I may start putting up information myself if we wait too much longer, I do get a tad fed up of people asking me what's happening to the steps and whether for not I worry about our house (I usually reply we are keen for a Musselburgh Post Code).

There are much worse things in life than bit of steep river bank landslip.

Causes of Landslip?

The historic landslip on our ground which still moves, albeit very very slowly, sits below the site of historic drainage infrastructure. 

The Lugton Road landslip was found to be partly caused by an enormous blocked drainage culvert. 

The Ironmills Steps sit directly below some very shoddy leaking drainage works exposed in recent years when the landslip here started. 

Landslip ; steep river banks - climate change - wet summers? Yes to all of these, but add drainage infrastructure or ignore at your peril.


Happy Xmas when it comes around, couple of days away. Hoping to catch up with all my lovely neighbours over New Year, despite the guy who walked the path saying all my neighbours hated me and I had been involved in Major, then maybe Minor, Corruption. 

Cheers
Susan

Tree Works Autumn 2018. MC Land-slipped Ground

Just to record planned tree works for Autumn 2018. 

Eskbank and Ironmills Conservation Area
Woodland at RP9 Cottage, Dalkeith Water Tower, Cemetery Road, Dalkeith. EH22 3DL
Description
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.
T1: Lime: Pruning requested.
T2: Sycamore: Felling requested.
Details
T1: Lime: removal of epicormic growth at the base and reduction of side branches to the southern side crown to create a more balanced crown shape is requested.
T2: Sycamore: This semi-mature sycamore is growing in close proximity to an adjacent hornbeam tree and yew tree and understorey young beech tree. The removal of this tree is requested in order to allow the better development of the hornbeam and yew. Whilst semi mature and generally of good form and health, this tree is suppressed by neighbouring trees and its removal will assist the adjacent two semi mature trees to mature. The additional light that reaches the woodland floor due to the removal of this tree should provide an opportunity for the young beech in the understorey to mature and take up the space available.
The applicant intends to provide replacement planting of three smaller native understorey Hazel trees close to the location of the tree removal, which can be managed in the form of rotation coppice. The stump of the felled tree should be left in situ to assist the stability of the slope, and some of the felled wood could be stacked in safe locations within the woodland as a biodiversity resource and to protect the slope from water erosion.

It is recommended that permission is granted.
Lead Officer: Conservation and Environment 10 October 201818/00710/WTT; Eskbank and Ironmills CA
Conditions: WTT01; WTT02

Have purchased 6 Hazel from Alba trees pending these works. Have had the gift of many Hazel plants in the past from my neighbour and fellow Paths Team colleague, Ian Brown.
Hazel is a great, easy to look after, understorey plant.  

Hoping to get the tree cutter in December, maybe January. Depends on the weather.

Will stack the felled wood as described by the tree officer, adding to the existing pile on the slope that stops me falling into the river from a great height! Good that it protects the bank too.

The Lime tree at the back in this photo

_The Sycamore at the front in this photo. Hornbeam behind. Young Beech tree which will be left to mature. __

_____________________________________________________________

The adjacent land slipped council ground remains untouched after the works to soil nail. I did write to the council to suggest some planting and creation of wood piles (bioengineering techniques) but they are not keen given that they have hydro-seeded the banking and do not want to have it disturbed.

Here's the official correspondence for reference.

Hello Karin

I have a suggestion for the land slip area in-keeping with works identified by Ironside Fararr in their report. 

Bioengineering techniques for bank stabilisation.

IF suggested creation of facines on the slope made from timber piles. 

Similar to what I created at one time on the fence line.

Looking at the dying mature Ash tree at the top of the slope, I would suggest this is felled or coppiced 

and the branches are used to create barriers and facines. In the open land more planting wouldn't go amiss, 

it's bereft of tree roots and the dying Ash tree may mean even less tree root on the slope in the future, 

adding to the potential instability.

I'm sure Tote could fell the tree at no actual cost given he is a council employee, 

and the paths team could work on the slope following a suitable risk assessment and with supervision.

I am no expert but in my 20 years experience with an area of slip on the ground we purchased from the council,

 it continues to move slowly, suffers mud slides in very wet weather and the pockets of clay soil are hard as rock 

in places with an no expectation of long term stability. It's nigh on impossible to establish plant growth in these. 

I wouldn't build access steps or put any weight on our land slip ground, but I would do everything in my 

power to prevent further slip. All the advice I have ever received is to build fascines and plant small trees and

 shrubs for root growth. Rowan, Aspen, Willow have all taken and Cornus shrubs have done really well. 

Willow whips never worked (I think it is too dry), it needs to be a more established specimen and indeed 

I did plant one on the council ground and it has survived, unlike the whips that were planted. 

Kind regards

Karin Loch	Mon, Oct 8, 12:36 PM (13 days ago)
to me, Justin

Dear Mrs Goldwyre,

Thank you for your email of the 4^th October and my apologises I was on leave, or I would have 

responded earlier.

To implement facines as a bioengineering remediation measure for the land slip (Council side) 

at Ironmills Steps, we would require to identify and cap the source of the water, prior to installation. 

I agree that currently the bank may benefit by increasing the soil’s root mat, but every time the 

ground is broken to plant vegetation- it provides the potential for more erosion to occur. 

Less disruptive is scatter seeding, which I believe John and Justin actioned as a remediation 

measure in previous years.

Hopefully, we may gain more information on the water sources in the area from BGS in the future.

Kind Regards

Karin