School Boundary Trees

TO
Posts: 709
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:05 pm

Re: School Boundary Trees

Post by TO » Sun Aug 26, 2018 8:06 am

Collaborate wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 7:49 am
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't TO a Tree Officer? Assuming that is correct, why would you need to look beyond any advice he/she chooses to proffer on this subject? Both practical and legal.
Not any more. I'm now a consultant in the private sector.

trying2doitright
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 8:25 pm

Re: School Boundary Trees

Post by trying2doitright » Sun Aug 26, 2018 3:29 pm

Hi To, and all. Please accept my apologies in advance, for this post being so long. Sorry,

>>>There has been an awful lot of research undertaken on trees and pollen. Some trees appear to be more allergenic than others, <<<

I had no previous knowledge of trees, though I have always admired the beauty of their silhouette. I recently referred to the ‘Ogren Plant-Allergy Scale’ which rates plants on a 1 to 10 scale, with 1 being the best, most allergy-free and 10 being the worst. This belt of school trees is made up of Alder = 9, Ash = 9, Beech = 7, Birch = 7, Cherry = 7, Oak = 9, Scots Pine = 4, Goat Willow = 6 and Crack Willow = 10, confirming the majority as high allergy trees.

>>>but how many people do you know who are severely allergic to tree pollen. In all the years that human beings have lived with trees how many have died from a tree pollen allergy. <<<

The tree pollen season for Hazel, Yew, Alder, Elm, Willow, Poplar, Birch, Ash, Plane, Oak, Pine and Lime starts as early as January and carries through to August. Grass pollen starts in May and lasts until September, as does herb pollen such as Dock, Mugwort, Nettle and Plantain. But tree pollen, particularly Silver Birch, is the primary instigator of all allergy problems.

Pollen allergy is most often referred to as hay fever. Hay fever affects about one in five people in the UK and is closely linked to asthma - 62% of people with asthma symptoms are triggered by pollen. There are 5.4 million people in the UK who are currently receiving treatment for asthma: 1.1 million children (1 in 11) and 4.3 million adults (1 in 12). In 2016 (the most recent data available) 1,410 people died from asthma. The NHS spends around 1 billion a year treating and caring for people with asthma. https://www.asthma.org.uk/about/media/f ... tatistics/

>>>I appreciate that you want the trees removed, but they’re not under your control, trying to bully the school into doing your bidding using information which just doesn’t stack up in your favour isn’t working or going to work, <<<

It’s much harder respecting the trees now, knowing that it’s possible that they should never have been planted there in the first place. But since your explanation re the planning conditions we have accepted defeat. Trying to bully the school would be completely out of character for me!

>>>£2 million is the HSE’s current value of a Statistical Life… <<<

As I understand it the HSE model was designed to provide high-level, aggregated estimates of the economic burden of work-related injuries and illnesses, and was not designed to provide specific estimates for different types of illness, as data limitations mean that the model is unable to differentiate lifetime costs by illness type. http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/adhoc- ... plementary

>>>Apply that to your trees. <<<

Where do I start?!... Since reaching maturity, this belt of highly allergenic trees has proven to be a constant source of stress, due to the problems that they impose. The burden of daily necessity to clear/clean internal and external tree debris from my home environment is proving to be a constant endeavour. During the months of October, November and December, I am repeatedly faced with the exhausting task of sweeping up and disposing of, a ‘mountain’ of fallen leaves and broken off branches. From January through to September I am either bombarded with creepy-crawly like catkins whilst in the garden, or invaded by seeds which settle on window sills, work surfaces and carpets, in sinks and the bath tub and even on my food in the fridge. They covert my bed sheets and survives the hottest of washing programs. However, the threat of Pollinosis due to living in such close proximity of this mature belt of highly allergenic trees is now my greatest concern. The threat to my health – the high risk I am exposed to, to developing allergic asthma from the invisible pollen grains of varying degrees in the air that I breathe, throughout eight months of the year. Surely this consequence of activity (externalities) could be justifiable in law?

The UK has some of the highest prevalence rates of allergic conditions in the world, with over 20% of the population affected by one or more allergic disorder. (M. L. Levy, 2004) A staggering 44% of British adults now suffer from at least one allergy and the number of sufferers is on the rise, growing by around 2 million between 2008 and 2009 alone. Almost half (48%) of sufferers have more than one allergy. (Mintel, 2010) Between the years 1992 to 2012 there was a 615% increase in the rate of hospital admissions for anaphylaxis in the UK. (Turner, Paul J., et al, 2015)

Back in 1972 the UK government announced the "Plant a Tree in '73" campaign, after Dutch elm disease had ravaged the countryside killing millions of trees. ... From this initiative to replace all the fallen elms The Tree Council was born in 1974 and has been running National Tree Week since it was launched in 1975. There are many places on line that offer free school packs of saplings native to Britain, in various amounts. Being as inquisitive as I am now - I set the Ogren Plant-Allergy Scale numbers next to a sample pack of the trees offered; Alder (9), Beech (7), Downy Birch (7), Elder (5), Rowen (4), Oak (8), Hornbeam (8), Ash (9), Blackthorn (7), Silver Birch (7), Hazel (7), English Oak (8), Holly (7), and Hawthorn (4). Of the 15 different species specified, two were rated 9, four at 8, six at 7, one at 5 and the last one was rated at 2. Twelve of the fifteen species of saplings offered for free were well into the worse allergy category.
I really had no in-depth knowledge of trees until my return to this forum with a question to ask. (Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:41 pm) I’m still very much a novice but rapidly gaining an inquisitive mind through the questions put to me, by others here… I’m now aware that trees are a major instigator of allergic rhinitis (hay fever), which is often trivialised as a minor condition, particularly by those who have never suffered with it, or witnessed the misery it can cause… That allergic rhinitis is directly associated with the development and severity of asthma and is often the trigger for severe asthma attacks. I am also aware that three people every day still die from asthma, here in the UK.

My query: - If Asthma is a consideration taken into account as justifiable data, in the statistical facts of exposure to second hand smoke (Smoking Ban Law UK)…Why are the well documented risk factors from tree pollen allergy to human health, not implemented in the same way?

“In Scotland (2010) and England (2013) studies found that: Implementing a comprehensive national smoke free law prohibiting smoking in all indoor areas of workplaces, restaurants, and bars, was associated with: An average reduction of 18.2% per year in the rate of hospital admissions for asthma in children aged <15 years relative to the rate on the date the law took effect… Improvement in respiratory health of non-smoking bar workers, including: A significant immediate change of –8.9% in the emergency hospital admission rate of children aged < 14 years with a principal diagnosis of asthma… 6,802 fewer admissions in the first 3 years after the law took effect. Under ‘Hostility Workers Health’ studies in Scotland (2006) Rapid (within 2 months) improvements in a number of health outcomes in non-smoking bar workers, including: Reduction in respiratory symptoms, like coughing, wheezing, and shortness of breath… Reduction in sensory symptoms, like eye and throat irritations and runny nose: Improvement in lung function: Reductions in inflammation or swelling of airways: Improved quality of life among bar employees with asthma.” https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statis ... /index.htm

Why, I then ask myself… Why are the professional bodies - such as those in the horticultural society, or current MP’s, who are interested in environmental and human health, avoiding putting forward proposals requesting a ban on high allergy rated species of the trees/saplings, that are freely given out to schools and communities, for the ‘Plant a Tree’ week, yearly event? I find it hard to believe that no one has questioned, or correlated data - covering the millions of planted trees, relative to the introduction of the ‘Plant a Tree’ campaign in 1975 and the massive increase of allergy related illness and the rise in Asthmatic patients to date. If, in so doing, then I believe that the quality of life in Asthma patients could be even more enhanced, by adding to the smoking ban in public places, a ban on planting highly allergenic trees by the roadside, near homes and in school playgrounds, etc., so that the possible risk of an allergic reaction could safely be avoided, by the public at large. This combination of actions, I believe, may also reduce the incidents of allergic rhinitis (hay fever) and could show a surprisingly impressive decline over a very short period of time. And then the whole range of externalities that trees impose, including the costs of hospital and medical care for Asthmatics and hay fever sufferers alike, along with disability payments for related respiratory diseases, welfare payments to surviving spouses, the cost of street, home and office clearing, disability payments for pollen allergy-related diseases, welfare payments made to surviving spouses, etc., etc. - Maybe then the HSE’s Statistical Life value could consider the full impact of Trees!

Thank you for reading,
Kindest Regards

mr sheen
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:33 pm

Re: School Boundary Trees

Post by mr sheen » Sun Aug 26, 2018 4:44 pm

The legal position has been clarified for you multiple times. You are refusing to accept the reality of the situation and are now proposing that the planet is turned into a tree-free desert based on unscientific anecdotes rather than evidence and all because a row of trees is annoying a few people.

The law is firmly on the side of the school who quite rightly prioritise spending their money on student education as is their duty and purpose.

If the trees are annoying you, then you can cut them right back to your boundary at your expense. That is your remedy or you can move to a tree-free zone. You have the exact same remedies as everyone else, you do not have rights over and above everyone else.

If the school chooses to leave the trees to grow, that is their right.

trying2doitright
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 8:25 pm

Re: School Boundary Trees

Post by trying2doitright » Sun Aug 26, 2018 7:49 pm

by mr sheen » Sun Aug 26, 2018 4:44 pm
>>>The legal position has been clarified for you multiple times. <<<

I did mention that we had accepted defeat after To very clearly explained our position.

>>>You are refusing to accept the reality of the situation and are now proposing that the planet is turned into a tree-free desert based on unscientific anecdotes rather than evidence and all because a row of trees is annoying a few people. <<<

Really!!!

>>>The law is firmly on the side of the school who quite rightly prioritise spending their money on student education as is their duty and purpose. <<<

I know that mr sheen

>>>If the trees are annoying you, then you can cut them right back to your boundary at your expense. <<<

Maybe you haven’t had the time to properly read and ‘digest’ my posts, or you have forgot that I have already mentioned in previous posts that I have paid £200 to have the main culprit pruned right back to the boundary.

>>>That is your remedy or you can move to a tree-free zone. You have the exact same remedies as everyone else, you do not have rights over and above everyone else.<<<

I wouldn’t expect to have more rights than others on this forum mr sheen, nor do I think that I am better than others here or elsewhere, but I am no lessor a person either!

>>>If the school chooses to leave the trees to grow, that is their right.<<<

I know that mr sheen, I don’t need to be reminded. Thank you.

I can assure you mr sheen that I have totally accepted the reality of our tree situation. However, I’m quite upset by your rather exaggerated insinuation; _ tree free dessert_ are you scaremongering? I find your definition of my sincere suggestion, quite alarming! I only suggested a ban on high allergy rated species of the trees; I know that there are many other species of lesser allergy rates that can produce very charming landscaping scenes. As far as ‘unscientific anecdotes’ - please don’t try to make me ‘laugh’ as I always take things quite seriously! Yes, my post was long, I apologised in advance for I felt the need to reply and explain fully, as best as I could, to To’s questions. Yes, I tried to make it interesting as I find that there is nothing more boring than stale repetition, but it wasn’t meant as a ‘story’ - if you picked it up that way maybe it is you who refuses to accept reality. No disrespect intended towards you mr sheen but I think I may have hit on a sore spot with you and I wonder what I am missing here. Kindest Regards

TO
Posts: 709
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:05 pm

Re: School Boundary Trees

Post by TO » Mon Aug 27, 2018 1:27 am

trying2doitright wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 3:29 pm
My query: - If Asthma is a consideration taken into account as justifiable data, in the statistical facts of exposure to second hand smoke (Smoking Ban Law UK)…Why are the well documented risk factors from tree pollen allergy to human health, not implemented in the same way?
Because there's no benefit to second hand smoking, only costs. There are substantial benefits to trees which outweigh the costs. Therein lies the problem of your latest approach. There are two sides to weigh in a cost/benefit analysis. You cannot select the cost side only, whilst completely ignoring the benefits, to prove your argument.

You list a whole load of problems you have with the trees, but health issues are not one of them. You only say they could cause health problems. Where's the argument in that to have the trees removed. You still want to drive your car and the risks associated with that are real, and far greater than the none existent health risk from the trees.

Believe it or not, as I type this I look out of the window and what I see is a lush green landscape, which was once tropical rain forest. There are no seasons here and plants are releasing pollen throughout the year. But the roads are not littered with corpses of people who have died from pollen allergies, maybe because there aren't any birch trees. But, if there is a body out there it's almost certainly a road traffic fatality.

liveinpeace
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 11:29 am
Number of Posts per Page: 10
Number of topics per page: 10

Re: School Boundary Trees

Post by liveinpeace » Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:43 am

hi trying2doitright
please don't rise to it with Mr sheen, he seems to enjoy trying to ruffle people with his comments, indeed he referred to me as "a penny pinching couch surfer" when i had sold my house and could not proceed with the sale of my new house due to a boundary dispute. have a look at how many people he has upset on other posts! I do think he enjoys it.It does make you wonder what has caused such an antagonistic stance.

I understand that it is very frustrating when the law does not help you, and people come on this site because they are usually at their whits end and want support.
you have had sound advice (though I know its not what you wanted to hear) from experts such as TO. I know the allergy angle might seem another way of trying to get some help with your problem, but sadly its not going to be enough.

the best option is as others have said, to get a group of the residents together, get a local newspaper to do an article, tugging at locals heart strings showing how dark your gardens are, even asking if any local tree surgeons would come forward and help some pensioners out. the tree surgeons would get good publicity and free advertising, and the school would not like the fact they are shown to be unconcerned about the nearby residents. Its worth a go.
kind regards
Liveinpeace

Morgan Sweet
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2015 7:47 pm

Re: School Boundary Trees

Post by Morgan Sweet » Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:30 am

liveinpeace wrote:
Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:43 am
hi trying2doitright

the best option is as others have said, to get a group of the residents together, get a local newspaper to do an article, tugging at locals heart strings showing how dark your gardens are, even asking if any local tree surgeons would come forward and help some pensioners out. the tree surgeons would get good publicity and free advertising, and the school would not like the fact they are shown to be unconcerned about the nearby residents. Its worth a go.
kind regards
Liveinpeace
May I suggest that the above advice is sound advice. Seek support from local councillors. Feature editors in local papers love this sort of story; get organised and try it. No doubt the paper will also ask the School for a comment and the School will want to appear reasonable in their response.


Overhanging trees are a menace and reasonable people would accept the fact and attend to them. Understanding that the problem may cause them adverse publicity, the School may wish to find an acceptable compromise. Best of luck, please let us know how you all get on.

mugwump
Posts: 470
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:34 pm

Re: School Boundary Trees

Post by mugwump » Mon Aug 27, 2018 11:36 am

One month later after being shamed into dealing with the trees, an article appears in the local paper where the school is having to cut back and ask parents for donations because they had to use money earmarked for education to appease neighbouring households over some trees.

Media can work both ways, not just the way you want

liveinpeace
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 11:29 am
Number of Posts per Page: 10
Number of topics per page: 10

Re: School Boundary Trees

Post by liveinpeace » Mon Aug 27, 2018 12:00 pm

everything is different when seen from some one elses view, if the local residents were moaning because a few leaves were blowing into their gardens, that may be petty, but if as the poster is saying the trees are seriously blocking light and over hanging into gardens, it is quite understandable that they want help with the problem. there is almost always a way for people to come together reasonably to sort problems out. Its just a shame they dont. I said that it would be good publicity and advertising for a local tree surgeon to help, which would be free or at reduced cost. schools often miss manage money, a school local to me commissioned a company to do a new logo costing thousands, when they have classes full of budding artists, and an opportunity very much missed. The logo even looked like a kid had drawn it!

is it me or do peoples posts seem a little angry at the moment!

TO
Posts: 709
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:05 pm

Re: School Boundary Trees

Post by TO » Mon Aug 27, 2018 1:11 pm

Unfortunately you have no right to light if you live in England and Wales. You do have the right to cut back the overhanging branches. But why should a Tree surgeon do it for free or next to no cost. Training and equipment costs 10's of thousands of pounds, and they have wages and other bills to pay. They probably want a wage too. There's often scope to work together, but that means compromise. At the moment it just seems like demands. I think people are getting a little frustrated with the thread and how it's going, that is nowhere. You have the power to help yourself but won't. You want to compromise but just seem to demand, and you expect the work done for little or no cost to yourself.

Collaborate
Posts: 1552
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 9:17 am
Number of Posts per Page: 20
Number of topics per page: 20

Re: School Boundary Trees

Post by Collaborate » Tue Aug 28, 2018 8:56 am

TO wrote:
Mon Aug 27, 2018 1:11 pm
Unfortunately you have no right to light if you live in England and Wales. You do have the right to cut back the overhanging branches. But why should a Tree surgeon do it for free or next to no cost. Training and equipment costs 10's of thousands of pounds, and they have wages and other bills to pay. They probably want a wage too. There's often scope to work together, but that means compromise. At the moment it just seems like demands. I think people are getting a little frustrated with the thread and how it's going, that is nowhere. You have the power to help yourself but won't. You want to compromise but just seem to demand, and you expect the work done for little or no cost to yourself.
+1. This thread ran its course a few pages ago.

MacadamB53
Posts: 6375
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:13 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 100
Number of topics per page: 50

Re: School Boundary Trees

Post by MacadamB53 » Tue Aug 28, 2018 11:38 am

Hi trying2doitright,

These council owned bungalows are the only bungalows in the vicinity of the school.

if your landlord doesn’t share your concerns about the trees then that’s what you should be addressing - by either negotiating a move for you or a change of stance from them.

kind regards, Mac

Post Reply