All right, we live in a lovely leafy avenue, unlike the poor sods in Enter the landscaper. There are regulations on the shape and structure of the dwelling extension or outhouse but not on the removal of flora which happens to be in the way.
Which raises the question - to what degree is foliage the business of all local residents as a whole [let's not extend the argument at this point to the oxygen breathing world]?
In other words, let's say there is a veritable woodland within which people have erected their fences and own the land therein. To what extent should they be free to hack down the foliage for their own brick and mortar designs?
There are two issues here:
1] the actual deforestation and denuding itself which leaves only the laneways relatively intact until the council comes along with its health and safety balderddash.
2] for the householder who has been quite sympathetic to the flora in his/her garden and has only removed the absolute minimum. Unfortunately, the hacking morons in the other properties indiscriminately cut trees down until, as Matt Wardman says:
The council officer drives down the road, and says: "There is only one tree left. It is important in the urban landscape. We must put a Tree Preservation Order."
Unfortunately for the house owner who cares about trees (and the environment, and squirrels, and insects, and bees), the actions of somebody else impose a cost without that person having to take any responsibility for that cost.
Thus a perverse incentive for the removal of urban trees exists. Why is it set up like this?
This, to me, appears to be the crux of the matter. Perhaps if a tree is of a certain size or age, then automatically this tree is protected, rather than subject to belated individual orders.
The only problem I see with your logic is the difficulty of attrition. If you only save the old and/or large trees how will you replace them as they die out? A long term problem for sure, but one that shows as you stated it is a bigger problem than one sees at first glance. I am all for individual rights and ownership, but the planet is getting smaller and quite crowded; I think we may be forced to take that into account when considering our own preferences.
ReplyDeleteOne of the problems is when a tree is not healthy or has lost some limbs and is unattractive. Why shouldn't the homeowner be allowed to remove it as long as they replace it with something.
ReplyDeleteMany the homeowner planted something which is maybe too large for the property or has past its best by date but is unable to chop it down because of new regulations.
Yes, both ladies - you're referring to attrition here and I did not factor that in. Clearly it must be factored in somewhere.
ReplyDeleteI agree with bith Lady M and jmb.
ReplyDelete