In Reply to Sefton's Chief Exec

Many of you will have had the response below from Margaret Carney.  First I would say I am very pleased but not surprised the Chief Exec is engaging with the public. In my experience Ms Carney is very approachable quite hands on.  However she is being directed in this instance by her officers, whose opinion she is duty bound to consider, especially as this issue has health and safety implication.  However I shall respond to the issues below in red.

Dear 

Thank you for your email.  It remains our opinion that the trees represent a potential public safety risk and as such should be removed.  The crown of the tree to the front of Cassidy’s was only 50% in leaf last year (summer 2017) and is the same this year. The Parish Council’s independent arborist agreed that if this was the case he would also recommend removal at the second inspection.  We are unsure why this view has changed. His view hasn't changed it has been [deliberately?] misrepresented.   The tree to the front of Boots was climbed recently with a view to pruning as per the recommendation within the independent report; Due to the level of decay in the main stem and crown a suitable anchor point could not be achieved. Pruning would therefore need to be undertaken via the use of a mobile platform. The fact that this amount of decay was found within the crown of the tree is a serious concern to the council and supports our professional opinion to remove this tree.

I emailed Bruce Hatton the tree Consultant commission by the Parish Council about the Cassidy's tree here is what he said "I had a telephone conversation with J B before I re inspected the trees in May. I confirmed that if the tree did not come into leaf with a minimum of 50% of the crown having leaf cover, then the options would be either a heavy crown reduction and the remedial actions suggested in my initial report, or removal. If the tree failed to flush, or at least flushed and then shed leaves soon after, then removal was most probably the best option. If the funding and willing is available to undertake the remediation works I recommended, then based upon the above statement, the tree could be retained, if not I doubt that the tree would survive more than three years and should therefore be removed". There is no ambiguity or change of heart and to suggest so is misleading. 

As for the Tree outside of Boots Mr Hatton's report states quite clearly that there was "Minimal crown deadwood present [and that there was]No evidence of internal decay", furthermore Formby Parish Council offered to pay for a reassessment of the tree to include climbing the tree for a close visual inspection.  Sefton Council point blank refused to allow this to happen.

Turning to your maintenance question, whilst the Parish Council has indicated they would consider funding the maintenance this has not been formally agreed as far as I am aware. I'm sure this can be arranged. They have asked for an estimated cost of the maintenance.  However even under this option the Council retains the liability should the trees fail. This has been confirmed by our legal and insurance advisors.  There is also of course the issue that none of us would want any injury or damage to be caused should the trees fail

The Council has given very serious consideration to the recommendations in the independent arborists report.  However these recommendation are extensive and have considerable implications for the pedestrian and highway area.  The maintenance regime required by the independent arborist includes

• Extending tree pits, lifting the paved surface to increase the amount of uncovered soil.  There are existing items of street furniture, utility and manhole covers in close proximity to each tree pit location so these would potentially restrict increasing the size on certain sides of the exiting pits.  Underground services drawings would also need to be reviewed and possibly trial pit excavations completed before final confirmation can be given to the scope of any size increases. Services are usually a few feet below the road surface, the proposed extension of the tree pits simply involves the removal of the stone slabs and aeration of the underlying soil. There is no suggestion of excavation! The size and particularly the shape of the pits is somewhat flexible, more soil needs to be exposed but some asymmetry would  be acceptable. 
• Mycorrhizal Drench:  This is a specialist fertilizer  which is usually undertaken in  the drip zone of the tree (the circumference of the crown) which in these locations is under the hard surface of the carriageway and footpath.  Therefore we do not consider this to be a practical treatment option if to be implemented in this way. I am deeply concerned an a little surprised that the Tree Officers advising Margaret Carney don't understand how Mycorrhizal treatment works.  It is not a fertiliser it is a symbiotic fungi that latches onto the tree roots and enables the tree to extract much more nutrients and moisture from the ground.  Crucially it spreads and colonises the soil. The fungal hyphae spreads through the soil and is a most effective treatment for highway trees.  It does not require the application to the circumference of the drip zone.
• Build a retaining system around the tree pits and mulch up to 200mm deep.  This would create a significant trip hazard for pedestrians and in particular those who may be visually impaired. There are trees in Elbow Lane with raised curb pits and Three Tuns Lane.  The street furniture most at risk from any extension are the Cycle tethers which have been flagged up to the Parish Council as most problematic to visually impaired residents, kerbs however are an everyday obstacle and are less of a problem, however there are many designs of tree pits that could eliminate trip hazard. 
• Cease the use of de-icing salt containing sodium chloride and use alternatives such  as urea, organic sodium chloride free di-icing salt or coarse sand: This has been considered and  it would not be operationally practical for the council  to consider using an alternative product for such a small isolated area.  Whilst the footway remains adopted highway the Council will need to continue its current practices to mitigate risk to pedestrians in freezing conditions. This is simply a matter of will and cost, surely it is a matter for elected members to decide what type of de-icing products are used on the ground, provided they are able to provide the same level of safety, we are all aware of the diminishing resources available to Sefton Council, but funding is part of the proposal.  Is it impractical or just inconvenient? 
• Cease Weed Spraying: The council can cease to weed spray within the tree pits of these trees; however an alternative solution may be more costly and less effective. This reason is a bit thin to say the least, there is a proposal to mulch the pits which will in itself reduce weeds, and the parish Council has a team that provide fabulous floral displays.  I'm sure they will tackle a few weeds in the tree pits!

I do understand that people would like to retain these trees and I want to assure you that we have been trying to look for a solution that would deliver this option.  Look harder! Unfortunately for the reasons above this has not been possible. Many of the reasons above are flimsy and the others are contentious to say the least. We are however discussing with the Parish Council the prospect of supplying replacement mature and semi mature trees for the area. 

Regards

Margaret

The real crux of this issue is whether the trees can be maintained in such a way that they can be made and kept safe.  The Parish Council's tree report demonstrates that this can be done. The steps necessary to do this presented in Mr Hatton's report are both practical and appropriate and I feel have been thoroughly misrepresented to the Ms Carney.