Rural Affairs and Environment Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 9, 2011

Official Report 422KB pdf

---

Petition

---

Tree Preservation Orders (PE1340)

PE1340 is from John Scott—not the John Scott who is sitting next to me—on behalf of Neilston and district community council. The petition relates to increasing the protection of Scotland’s trees from felling. We discussed it at our meeting of 22 December and decided to revisit it after completing consideration of the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. An amendment to the bill that sought broadly to implement the change that the petitioner requests was lodged at stage 2. During those proceedings, the Minister for the Environment and Climate Change, Roseanna Cunningham, indicated that the Scottish Government did not support that change but that other recent changes to tree preservation orders should address some of the concerns that had been raised. The amendment was not pressed to a vote.

The committee is now asked either to close the petition or to continue it, to allow the successor committee to decide whether to take any further action on it. Do members have any comments on the paper that the clerk has produced or any suggestions as to how we should proceed?

I was not present when the committee originally considered the petition, so I am simply proceeding on the basis of what has been said and what is in front of us. The petition certainly seems to have contributed to the discussion of the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, but I cannot identify what further parliamentary action would sensibly flow from it, although perhaps colleagues can. Therefore, I am minded to support its closure.

I broadly agree with Stewart Stevenson. Bill Wilson did the right thing in raising the matter when the opportunity arose to give it a good airing in the Parliament, but the proposal that all trees be designated is probably impractical.

Perhaps I should declare an interest. My house is called “Birchwood” because I live in a birch wood.

It is inevitable that trees have to be managed and designating all trees would place a huge burden on the authorities, making it difficult to get anything cleared, even in the most innocent circumstances. I understand where the community council that lodged the petition is coming from. There is nothing more infuriating to a community than losing good, mature trees that are part of the amenity of its area without any prior notice. I saw that happen a number of times when I was a councillor and it causes extreme annoyance and distress. However, I do not think that the mechanism that has been suggested would be practical.

I agree with Stewart Stevenson. The issue has had an airing and the petition should be closed.

To be fair, the proposal is not to designate all trees, but only ancient avenues of trees, for example, or all trees in an area. An area would be specifically designated. That is my understanding of the intent of the petition. However, in light of Roseanna Cunningham’s response, it makes sense to see whether her amendments will be effective before we try to add yet more legislation. The petition should therefore be closed. If, three or four years down the line, the petitioner concludes that the new methods do not work, it is open to him to say, “Look, this hasn’t worked. We have to look at something else.”

Okay. Do members agree that the petition should be closed?

Members indicated agreement.