Yesterday as we drove to our allotment we passed along a street where some fine old trees have just been cut down, trees with trunks a couple of feet in diameter. Our guess was that they had been removed because they were warping the pavement and trips and falls were filling the pockets of ambulance chasing lawyers. So the aspect of the area has been changed for the next several decades because of a fear of litigation. The street looks like someone given a razor haircut against their wishes.
Is it hypocrisy that one of the things we went to do on our plot was cut down a tree? In that case it was a pear, a substantial tree perhaps 20 years old, but that in our seven years there has only yielded one decent crop, in spite of much TLC - manure, sticky bands, pruning... Most of it is now in the allotment shed, one large bag brought home and put in our wood-store. That tree was also shading too much of our land, and our neighbours' land, and we had the foresight to plant a small cherry tree close by two years ago with the idea that the pear would go sooner or later.
Will the local authority plant replacements on that now bald street? Or will they think it too much effort (and cost, and future cost)? Their thinking about trees it seems is mainly what the possible dangers are, however unlikely: a few years back some other fine specimens, laurels of some sort I think, were removed from a park here because they were close to a children's play area, and the leaves contain a poison. After the felling it was pointed out that just to get a bit of a poorly tummy a child would need to eat several pounds of the leaves.
No comments:
Post a Comment