Official Report 558KB pdf
Tree Preservation Orders (PE1340)
Item 5 is consideration of petition PE1340, which is brought by Mr John Scott—but not the one at the table here—on behalf of Neilston and district community council. It relates to increasing the protection of Scotland’s trees from felling. The petitioner made a further submission to the committee on 20 December, which clarified that the main aim of the petition is to establish provision for tree conservation areas. Trees in those areas would have legal protection similar to that in conservation areas.
I wonder whether some of the aims and hopes of the petitioners might fit into the land use strategy. I refer to the protection of tree plantings and the 25 per cent target for forest cover. Those things might connect.
I understand that there is a possibility that the constituency member who represents the petitioner’s area might be lodging an amendment to the WANE bill at stage 2, which would give us an opportunity to consider the matter in connection with other evidence.
How far can the committee go with the conservation of trees? I will give an example—and perhaps I could get some feedback from the clerks. There was a certain birch tree in Glasgow—I will not mention the area—that had a tree conservation order put on it by the city council. All the legislation was in place but the tree was mysteriously felled during the night. A development was going on at that location. Would the potential new legislation offer more protection? Would it give the council, or even the police, more powers in cases like that illegal felling in Glasgow? Lo and behold, the development is now going ahead—without the tree. Would the new provisions help in such cases? I want to know what the purpose of the proposals is.
I cannot say. We would have to get back to you on that. All the stuff on this subject has come to us fairly late, and this is the first stab that we have had at it. Shall we go with Elaine Murray’s suggestion, and wait until—
I do not think that the proposals would assist in the protection of individual trees; they are more to do with creating tree conservation areas, in which trees are given protected status.
More important, the point does not apply in the case that Sandra White describes, as the tree was illegally felled—we cannot provide protection to stop an illegal act.
I understand that the Woodland Trust is prevailing on Ken Macintosh to produce an amendment at stage 2.
I would be concerned if a street full of trees had a protection order or conservation order on it. Sometimes, trees lift pavement slabs and cause great danger to pedestrians. Councils have to decide whether to remove the old tree, which might have become too big for the pavement, and plant another one. I wonder whether that would not be possible if such provisions were introduced.
I suspect, though, that—
My understanding—
One at a time. Liam, please.
My understanding is that such an order would not prevent felling or other actions in the circumstances that have been cited. If Ken Macintosh is to lodge an amendment, that provides an opportunity to explore the issue in a bit more detail at stage 2.
If the aim was to ensure that an avenue of trees is maintained, replacing some of the trees over time would be accepted as necessary. Otherwise, if they all died at around the same time, the avenue would be gone. That covers the circumstance that has been described.
Okay. We will wait and see what comes forward at the next stage of the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. We will defer consideration of the petition until after the passage of the WANE bill.