Jump to content
We’re excited to announce the forum is under new management! Click here for details.

Council tree felling...

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, dave_the_m said:

For a long time. The mature trees don't grow nearly as fast as saplings, and once the ground above the root has been uncompacted a bit (e.g. with a bit of sand), there is enough "give" for the root to grow further without cracking the tarmac above.

Doesn't "uncompacting" work both ways - ie if their is "give" for the root to grow then there is also more chance of the tarmac being pressed downwards with the "give" below.

 

And "a long time" is no real sort of measure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Longcol said:

But how many in a city with 4.5 million trees does it take to have any noticeable environmental impact?

For how long - assuming the tree, and therefore the roots, continues to grow.

Why are you still seemingly trying to justify the unnecessary removal of healthy trees? That argument has thankfully already been lost, and the council forced to admit they were wrong and apologise. Felling was never a ‘last resort’, but a mechanism through which Amey could increase their profits. 
 

To answer your question directly - it depends what you mean by ‘noticeable environmental impact’. If you mean the total of amount of Co2 sequestration, then even felling 100% of street trees would have a negligible impact.
 

If you measure it by the reduction in airborne particulate matter on certain roads, or the cooling effect on hot days, then the loss of street trees would cause a much greater impact. 

If you’re talking about the loss of the habitat of the rare white lesser hairstreak, then the loss of a single tree would have a noticeable impact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Longcol said:

Doesn't "uncompacting" work both ways - ie if their is "give" for the root to grow then there is also more chance of the tarmac being pressed downwards with the "give" below.

 

And "a long time" is no real sort of measure.

By "long time" I mean decades. Another way of looking at it is that, supposing that mature tree roots do indeed grow and damage the tarmac over time, why wouldn't the replacement saplings also damage the tarmac as they grow into full-sized trees? So replacing the trees with saplings doesn't protect the pavement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dave_the_m said:

By "long time" I mean decades. Another way of looking at it is that, supposing that mature tree roots do indeed grow and damage the tarmac over time, why wouldn't the replacement saplings also damage the tarmac as they grow into full-sized trees? So replacing the trees with saplings doesn't protect the pavement.

It depends if they prepare and reinforce under the pavement first, or place 'root blockers' so they can only go down, and not straight out across the pavement...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.