On 28 Oct 2008 at 3:44am SHS wrote:
Paulownia or 'foxglove tree' - the prize specimen on the patio next to the big house. The stump left on Sunday showed the tree was perfectly healthy so must have been a health & safety non-issue (danger of leaves falling on people). Anyone know who runs this garden and who made the decision (a year ago?) to cut down most of the trees?
On 28 Oct 2008 at 6:03am FA wrote:
Pauwlonias are stunning trees....big spikes of bright blue flowers in May but they are not particulary long lived for a tree and they can be a bit brittle in storms.
The trunk doesn't necessarilly have to be in bad condition....there are some diseases where the tree has to come out art the first opportunity (Elms with Dutch Elm disease for example) before the disease spreads. Fire blight would be a classic example although im not sure if this tree is prone to that (it attacks mainly species from the Rose family).
Although i have nothing to do with the Grange, i can assure you that felling a trees is not taken lightly and there is usually a very good reason behind it.
On 28 Oct 2008 at 11:11am Local wrote:
'i can assure you that felling a trees is not taken lightly and there is usually a very good reason behind it.' I'm afraid that where Lewes District Council are concerned, absurd decisions are taken lightly and often there is no very good reason.
On 28 Oct 2008 at 11:25am FA wrote:
So local....what is the reason then ???
On 28 Oct 2008 at 2:06pm Local wrote:
We can only surmise - my point is that we shouldn't accept unquestioningly decisions taken by LDC. That's how we lose a million pounds in a dodgy Iceland deal.
On 28 Oct 2008 at 6:31pm SHS wrote:
If a citizen of our town has a bad back or a dodgy knee do we shoot him dead on the spot? No, we let him live..... Vast numbers of trees have diseases but still manage to survive and grow for a hundred years and more. I agree with you Local. Grange Gardens is arguably of greater importance to the residents of Lewes, and to some tourists, than the castle - so surely at least the population should be consulted? Why to we protest about deforestation in other countries when in England we probably fell tens of thousands of trees every year!
On 28 Oct 2008 at 6:41pm FA wrote:
All im saying is that no one...including me has any idea why it was felled. The foxglove tree is one of the most spectacular trees around and they are neither invasive or get too tall.
No one has has come up with a decent reason so let's assume there was something wrong with it until we know otherwise.
If you're that worried SHS, why haven't you phoned LDC up and asked them ?
On 28 Oct 2008 at 7:13pm Local wrote:
FA says, 'All im saying is that no one...including me has any idea why it was felled.' In that case it might be best not to come on to the forum immediately leaping to the defence of LDC. They have form, you know, and it's right to be suspicious of them.
On 28 Oct 2008 at 7:24pm FA wrote:
I didn't come to the immediate defence of LDC.....i'm a head gardener and usually, these things happen for a reason. I have several of these trees in the garden i look after and they can become very brittle...we lose some serious branches in windy conditions.
If the tree has come down for no reason, i'd be first on the phone to them, they are stunning...but until anyone asks, we'll have to keep guessing and accusing
On 28 Oct 2008 at 7:55pm Weasel Warrior wrote:
Have you asked yet SHS?
On 28 Oct 2008 at 7:58pm FA wrote:
Have you...weasel features ?????????????????????
On 28 Oct 2008 at 8:42pm Agony Aunt wrote:
Maybe the tree just broke in the gale force winds at the weekend.
Planting another will replace the lost tree and act as a memorial to your loss.
Talking and hugging your tree will encourage it to develop, gain confidence and reach it's true potential.
On 29 Oct 2008 at 12:44am sashka wrote:
If the council had any common sense, and actually cared about the people who pay for these services, they would just do what they eventually did, regarding the mishandling of the tulip tree disaster.
simply attach an A4 laminated sign on the stump explaining what happened. How hard can that be?
admin cost pence- less than a pound, credibility it would give rotten council-lots.
On 29 Oct 2008 at 3:00am SHS wrote:
Will calling the council bring the tree back? I work hard to pay my taxes that pay for government - central and local - to run the country and among many other things to look after public spaces and the country's treasures. I should not have to find extra time during the day to chase up the council to do it's job properly and obey the law (I think Grange Gardens is in a conservation area and certainly the building is listed - the trees affect it's setting). I'll call the council if I get moment this week but as I have said many times on this forum, we do not live in a democracy any more and complaining will achieve nothing except a patronising excuse.
On 29 Oct 2008 at 5:09am FA wrote:
[QUOTE] will calling the council bring the tree back [QUOTE]
f*** me it's like you're going to start crying in a minute !!!....would you want the tree to be brought back if it had fireblight or it was unsafe enough.
What was the outcome of the Tulip tree...i remember it happenning but can't remember why
On 29 Oct 2008 at 5:12am sashka wrote:
so did the council not follow the correct planning process for removing the tree? this would be worth publicising, if it is so, as they can't expect everyone else to abide by one set of rules. They have already breached planning permission regulations regarding the demolition of a listed wall in east St car park, and i doubt this is the only example.
On 29 Oct 2008 at 10:06pm Lopster wrote:
no it won't bring the tree back - but only by questioning and therefore challenging their often inapropriate decisions will these people ever get the message that many of their rulings are unacceptable to the people that live in this town - IF tree sick and beyond hope THEN no problem ELSE shame on you (again!!!) council
On 30 Oct 2008 at 1:50pm ROK wrote:
OK, explanation from parks and gardens is as follows. The tree was sick, had remedial surgery last year, didn't work, tree dying equals public at risk, therefore removed (autumn/winter gales rasises the risk level).
New tree of same species on order for replanting.
On 30 Oct 2008 at 2:17pm Frak wrote:
FA - Hope the apologies come in quickly, somehow I doubt they will!!!!
On 30 Oct 2008 at 3:40pm FA wrote:
Thanks Frak but i don't want appologies....i have several large Paulownias in the garden i look after at work and believe me they are spectacular. Not a tree to be taken out of a public garden unless there was something seriously wrong
On 31 Oct 2008 at 9:58am sashka wrote:
Thanks ROK for info. Such a shame that LDC have learnt nothing from the last tree debacle and simply understood that a notice by the removed stump of a much loved landmark would be helpful, avoid confusion, and develop trust. As usual not quite as black and white as LDC would have us believe. 'risk' is a very debatable subject. Was there a planning application for this work, as this would have enable any views contradicting LDC's opinion to be aired in the correct way?
On 31 Oct 2008 at 7:28pm SHS wrote:
Good to see you look at the local issues on this forum ROK and thank you for investigating. I remain suspicious, as the tree was young. If we cut down every tree that had some form of disease we would lose 75% of the trees in England. If we are genuinely concerned about the carbon Foot Prince, Lobal Warning and others, we should re-evaluate the importance or trees and realise that an active person is (a) one hundred times more likely to suffer an accident with a car than by a leaf/conker/branch falling on his head, (b) fifty times more likely to trip over as a result of an uneven pavement, (c) highly likely to suffer stress and depression due to the absence of greenery in the townscape and (d) unlikely to read this forum. (Source: thin air).
On 1 Nov 2008 at 3:26pm sashka wrote:
Does anyone know of anyone being injured by a tree branch falling from a similar tree with similar state of disease?
I do not know much about trees, and am worried I might find myself standing under this species in a gale, without knowing, and being killed by it collapsing dramatically all of a sudden.
On 1 Nov 2008 at 3:59pm SHS wrote:
On 16th October 1432, just outside the village of Tidpit, Hampshire, 106 invaders were killed instantly when a whole row of Paulownia tormentosa - suffering from autumnus folia occidi occasum - suddenly collapsed into a toxic dust.
On 1 Nov 2008 at 4:12pm sashka wrote:
Terrifying news. I expect this is what the LDC tree officer is worried about. I am also now very concerned about beech trees which it is well known can lose their limbs at any time, diseased or otherwise. I think we should peition for them all to be cut down too, to prevent hundreds of deaths. There is also a very serious risk of poisoning from yew trees (or 'killer berry tree') laburnum (or 'killer pod tree') horse chesnut (or 'poisonous conker killer') and I would be reasonably sure that statistically these are much more dangerous. Thank God the Council is helping to protect us with their 'no risk' strategy.
(though I wonder why they helped create the treachourous steep banked water hazard of the 'heart of reeds' )
On 1 Nov 2008 at 4:27pm Lopster wrote:
have "pond"ered that one many times myself sash - nicely landscaped wild area - gentle banks neat paths, little mound to view it all from - ad then a precipice into a death pool that needs a warning sign - hardly appropriate
On 2 Nov 2008 at 5:40pm Sashka wrote:
yet another planning cock up. wonder why none of theCouncillors who approved it thought to question such an obvious danger. steep banks and slippery mud in an area where there is often no one to help. are created, yet the possibility that a branch might fall of a small tree, in a well used park, next to a public building demands the instant removal of 'risk'.