Queen's Green Canopy

[Nimrod103]

I work with a voluntary organization where one of its Trustees has become very keen on the Queen's Green Canopy scheme. The impact of this is that he wants to plant various trees in places I don't think are suitable because they will cast shade where we want sun. Since this scheme sounds very environmentally laudible, it has the management's backing. I am looking for reasons to object.

I am all for planting up new woods and copses, especially if the sponsors have available parkland or fields, but it seems to me that random trees planted here, there and everywhere, some close to gardens, will just throw this sunlight deprived country into further shade.

Any other views?

[pje16]

My local council has just ruined a beautiful open space in my area (which already has more than enough trees on the perimeter) by planting 500 , that's right FIVE HUNDRED !!) trees as.... wait for it
A memorial to Covid-19
WTF.. who wants a memorial to that
It will look hideous on 50 years time
glad I won't be here to see it

btw 4 other local boroughs were offered and turned it down but our council (Barnet - name and shame) don't listen to us
There are elections next year

[MrFoolish]

Trees are good thing and should be welcomed. Sadly most have been ripped up in this country to make way for intensive farming. Most of our ancient woodlands have gone.

Don't be a NIMBY about it. If certain trees in your scheme are in an unsuitable location (you mention shading gardens*) then comment on those individually rather than making a blanket objection.

*Have you actually discussed it with their owners?

[Midsmartin]

If it's a place where there may be wildlife, ask your wildlife trust for advice. If there is undergrowth full of plants and insects then trees may harm them. That doesn't sound like the situation though. Trees otherwise bring more birds, insects and wildlife, and are usually said to be beneficial for people's wellbeing as well. Surely everyone prefers a leafy tree lined street to one denuded of everything?

Those random trees may in future provide valuable nesting for birds, or food sources for insects which in turn feed the birds. Sadly modern gardens are often tidied to remove all nesting places and value to wildlife. And the 'environment' isn't just something pretty out of the window. It's our very own habitat that we rely on to survive.

Open spaces are valuable for children to play on, and there are few spaces where children are allowed to kick a football about. But it doesn't sound as though you are describing the planting of a football field.

In general, bring on the trees. But it all depends on the exact location, I think, which we can't comment on. Tree roots can sometimes damage very nearby buildings.

We have a garden, and it is partially shaded by a neighbour's beautiful silver birch. I have planted a couple more trees too. I'd love my garden to be a small piece of woodland. Though it's not so good for vegetable yields.

[jackdaww]

.

please do not plant leylandii in gardens .

[richlist]

We've got leylandii and they are doing just fine. We like them, the neighbours like them, they are cheap, easy to grow and look great.
I decline your request but recognise your right to your opinion.

[Nimrod103]

.

please do not plant leylandii in gardens .

I agree with that. Leylandii are an unnatural cross created by human intervention, and like many crosses are very vigorous. Most people plant them to grow rapidly, without thinking ahead to the fact that they never stop growing rapidly - 1m/year vertically.

Although I accept that, say, 100 years ago there were more wildlife rich woods in England, though perhaps not a lot more. And there were certainly more hedgerows and hedgerow trees, particularly the Elm. However, it is interesting looking at old photos of the English countryside, and see how lacking in trees many towns and villages were. With fewer trees, people could get a lot more sun in their houses and grow vegetables in gardens and allotments.

[Nimrod103]

.

please do not plant leylandii in gardens .

I agree with that. Leylandii are an unnatural cross created by human intervention, and like many crosses are very vigorous. Most people plant them to grow rapidly, without thinking ahead to the fact that they never stop growing rapidly - 1m/year vertically.

Although I accept that, say, 100 years ago there were more wildlife rich woods in England, though perhaps not a lot more. And there were certainly more hedgerows and hedgerow trees, particularly the Elm. However, it is interesting looking at old photos of the English countryside, and see how lacking in trees many towns and villages were. With fewer trees, people could get a lot more sun in their houses and grow vegetables in gardens and allotments.

In most British residential streets, there is at least one house owner who is so in love with trees, that they make their neighbours' lives a misery:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -down.html

The Queen's Green Canoply just gives them more reason to persist.

[Hallucigenia]

We've got leylandii and they are doing just fine. We like them, the neighbours like them, they are cheap, easy to grow and look great.
I decline your request but recognise your right to your opinion.

Leylandii have their place - but in >80% of cases another species would be more suitable. As Nimrod says, they're planted because they grow quickly initially - but then they keep growing, and also dry out the soil beneath so that very little grows.

It's not so relevant in this case but one way to ensure leylandii doesn't get planted in new schemes, particularly public buildings, is to ask the planners to insist that any planting is of native species. It's not the sort of thing that people think of, but once it's a planning condition it's very hard to argue against.

[Midsmartin]

I don't think owners of huge leylandeii hedges are in love with trees. They just like having a big barrier. If they loved trees I like to think they d have a wider variety of tree that's more appropriate for the UK.

The leylandeii discussion is a diversion I think, as I doubt that these are what would be planted by the scheme.

It seems to me that choice is the answer here. Some people may like a tree near their garden, and others may not. Let them choose. Subsequent residents can then choose a house with sun, or a house with a tree.

[Mike4]

I am all for planting up new woods and copses, especially if the sponsors have available parkland or fields, but it seems to me that random trees planted here, there and everywhere, some close to gardens, will just throw this sunlight deprived country into further shade.

A friend of mine is a tree monkey. He lives and breathes trees just like I do gas boilers

He is very much of the opinion that the right tree in the wrong place is worse than no tree at all from an environmental point of view. Knowing him he would be able to produce reams of reasons to back this up so a bit of research of your own along these lines will probably throw up some excellent technical reasons to help oppose the planting of "random trees planted here, there and everywhere".

But is that really is the proposal, not a well thought out planting scheme designed by a professional arboriculturalist? If not, you should press for a proper planting scheme to be professionally designed.

[Nimrod103]

I am all for planting up new woods and copses, especially if the sponsors have available parkland or fields, but it seems to me that random trees planted here, there and everywhere, some close to gardens, will just throw this sunlight deprived country into further shade.

A friend of mine is a tree monkey. He lives and breathes trees just like I do gas boilers

He is very much of the opinion that the right tree in the wrong place is worse than no tree at all from an environmental point of view. Knowing him he would be able to produce reams of reasons to back this up so a bit of research of your own along these lines will probably throw up some excellent technical reasons to help oppose the planting of "random trees planted here, there and everywhere".

But is that really is the proposal, not a well thought out planting scheme designed by a professional arboriculturalist? If not, you should press for a proper planting scheme to be professionally designed.

Actually the proposal was to plant trees alongside a heritage railway line. One lobby thinks this is a great idea to make a green corridor and wild life haven. The other lobby thinks that trees will be blown over onto the track, fallen leaves will block the drains, or if dry catch fire, leaves on the rails affect the brakes and can cause expensive flats on the wheels, and the passengers want to see the countryside, not a tree tunnel. The safety case won the day, but it did raise the issue as to whether planting trees everywhere is what people really want to see.

[Midsmartin]

Railway companies seem to be in agreement that trees are a big problem and would really like to fell all trees along their tracks. So perhaps the no-tree lobby is correct in this case. I could be provocative and ask how the heritage railway line will reach zero carbon emissions(I assume they burn coal). Perhaps a tree lined cycle route instead would be nice!

[Mike4]

I think the point of this headlong rush to plant millions of trees is to save the planet by sucking up all the CO2, not to look nice.

[Mike4]

So perhaps the no-tree lobby is correct in this case. I could be provocative and ask how the heritage railway line will reach zero carbon emissions(I assume they burn coal).

And also to be provocative, one could suggest that planting a row of trees each side of the line might offset the CO2 from running the steam engine. Net result: the same as with no steam engine and no trees! Perhaps.

[MrFoolish]

I think the point of this headlong rush to plant millions of trees is to save the planet by sucking up all the CO2, not to look nice.

Trees are also good for the hierarchy of wildlife, from insects upwards. This helps to protect our food chain.

The UK has one of the worst biodiversity records of anywhere on this planet. I think this shames us, or it should do.

[Nimrod103]

Railway companies seem to be in agreement that trees are a big problem and would really like to fell all trees along their tracks. So perhaps the no-tree lobby is correct in this case. I could be provocative and ask how the heritage railway line will reach zero carbon emissions(I assume they burn coal). Perhaps a tree lined cycle route instead would be nice!

The safety case is really un-answerable, because the recent Salisbury crash was undoubtedly caused by wheel slip in a cutting where the trees had not been cleared for a few years. Photos taken in that area no more than 20 years ago show a clear lineside, so the decision not to fell trees is a relatively recent one done to save money.

As to coal, the Govt has assured the heritage railways that they will always be able to use coal, as the amounts involved are really quite minor (26,000 tons/year). The biggest producers of CO2 involved are the tourists who drive to travel on them. The zero carbon lot should be targetting all tourism, beginning perhaps with all jet aircraft?

[jackdaww]

We've got leylandii and they are doing just fine. We like them, the neighbours like them, they are cheap, easy to grow and look great.
I decline your request but recognise your right to your opinion.

===============================

reasons.

they will go up to 50ft plus easily .
they are very dark and cast 100% shadow.
they are at that height ugly - opinion.
my neighbour 50 yards away had a standing - had to be cut down - i am burning them - rural area .
my brother bought a bungalow with a standing at the far end - now cut down - has transformed the garden and lawn - neighbours very pleased.
i planted some as a hedge on road boundaries - fine for a few years but then impossible to keep down to 6 ft .
an abomination - opinion .

[jackdaww]

Railway companies seem to be in agreement that trees are a big problem and would really like to fell all trees along their tracks. So perhaps the no-tree lobby is correct in this case. I could be provocative and ask how the heritage railway line will reach zero carbon emissions(I assume they burn coal). Perhaps a tree lined cycle route instead would be nice!

=======================

the heritage railway movement is a big part of many peoples lives - young and old.

i am pleased they are not being shut down.

however , much more CO2 is produced by the many thousands who visit the railways and by those who travel to watch the mainline specials - which are indeed special .

there is talk of a green coal - mixing in the like of avacado kernels .

[Nimrod103]

there is talk of a green coal - mixing in the like of avacado kernels .

Off topic but the idea that importing avocados to eat (hardly eco friendly), which could be offset by collecting all the avocado stones, drying them, converting them into some sort of briquette so that it could be burnt instead of coal - it just leaves me with my mouth agape. I think I must live on a different planet with different economic rules.