Skip to main content

Unfortunately, you can't participate in this project anymore because it has been archived

Tree and Woodland Policy Consultation

This new Tree and Woodland Policy is part of the Council's wider plan to tackle the climate emergency. The Council is responsible for around 15,000 individual trees on land along roads, streets, parks, and other open spaces throughout Stirling.

This policy outlines a commitment to increasing the number, area, age and species diversity of the Council’s trees and woodlands.

As part of the new Policy, trees would only be cut down as a last resort where there is a clear safety risk. The Council would also commit to, where trees do have to be cut down, replacing them either in the same location or as close as is suitable.

The woodland areas owned and managed by the Council extend to around 400 hectares, that is the same as roughly 747 football fields.

This plan aims to deliver a wide range of economic, social and environmental benefits to Stirling’s residents, visitors and businesses.

These include:

Improving biodiversity
Storing CO2
Providing shelter in winter and shade in summer
Health benefits
Mitigating flood risk

You can find the draft document saved below (PDF document) for your review.

Stirling Council Tree Policy .pdf

(533.7 KB)

Phases

Phases overview

Phase 1: Feedback on the Plan

Feedback on the Plan

Phase 2: Analysis

Analysis

Feedback on the Plan

28 June 2021 23:00 - 24 August 2021 23:00

We would like to hear your views on our Tree and Woodlands policy.

When we have collected and analysed your feedback, a final version of the Tree and Woodland Policy will be brought before the Environment and Housing Committee for consideration later this year. When it has been agreed, the final policy will be published on our website.

To provide feedback select add a contribution. You can also comment on existing contributions.

19 contributions

Susan Mitchell5 years ago Unfortunately, although this is meant to be a public consultation on Stirling Council's Tree Policy, in fact the document simply tells us what Stirling Council will and will not do. It does not tell the public which parts are statutory and which are advisory. It does not tell the public what options are available. In short, it isn't much of a consultation at all but more of a fait accompli. It seems as though all of the decisions have been made already. It is also written in such a way that many of Stirling Council's residents would not be able to understand it unless they were involved in the management of trees. So first of all you need to simple, clear version of your tree policy that is easy to access and is one that everyone can read and understand. So you will need a plain/simple English version, an audible version and a braille version.Secondly, you need to provide options for people to choose. We, the public, don't know what is possible because we are not familiar with the legal aspects, the financial aspects or the practical aspects of tree management. Thirdly, you can't just refer people to documents that are elsewhere. Do you really expect people to read and understand all the documents that you mention such as: Hazards from Trees - A General Guide, Forestry Commission, 2000. Common Sense Risk Management of Trees - Guidance on trees and public safety in the UK for owners, managers and advisers, National Tree Safety Group, 2011. Urban Tree Manual - The Right Tree in the Right Place, Forestry Commission, 2018. British Standard 3998, Tree work, 2010. British Standard 5837, Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction, 2012. British Standard 8545, Trees from nursery to independence in the landscape, 2014. Arboricultural Association, Royal Scottish Forestry Society, Institute of Chartered Foresters, Scottish Tree Officer Group, Woodland Trust? If these documents are so important you need to explain them to us.Fourthly, you are meant to be engaging with the public. This means looking at things from our point of view as well as the Council's point of view. Which part of the document is up for debate? How much are you prepared to alter the document to fit our suggestions? Are you wanting to gain support for the document? Are you wanting new, innovative ideas? Is this just a rubber stamp exercise where if no one replies then whatever you suggest will just go forward?Fifthly, you need to provide maps. Most of us don't have a picture in our heads of where all the woodland areas, parks and public amenity areas are in Stirling Council's area and we won't have an idea of their current state.Assuming that your purpose of engaging with the public is to illicit good ideas and gain support, I strongly suggest the following: You need to increase the number of native / wildlife-friendly trees in Stirling and the surrounding areas. I agree that most should be native wildlife-friendly species with the occasional exotic species. There should be no strimming within two metres of a tree trunk or within two metres of the above-ground roots of a tree. This will avoid inadvertent damage to the bark or above-ground roots of the tree, and thus minimising the chances of allowing diseases to infiltrate trees. There should be no Roundup (glyphosate) within three metres of a tree trunk or tree suckers or above-ground roots. This will avoid inadvertent poisoning and killing of trees. When an ill or dead tree has to be taken away by the Council it should be replaced during the autumn season of the same year or the autumn season of the following year, whichever is the soonest. The number of trees should be increased at least by Scotland's target figures in proportion with Stirling Council area's population or land areas (whichever turns out to be the largest number) in the requisite time period. The public should be able to easily access on Stirling Council's website tree-planting targets and the number of trees planted on a three monthly basis so that they can compare the figures with the targets. Appropriate wildflowers should be planted for 1-2 metres around the base of every tree in every public park and every amenity area to help promote Stirling Council's biodiversity duty and Pollinator Strategy in areas not usually associated with wildflowers. At least 20% of trees should be fitted with bat boxes to recompense for the general loss of roosts and hibernating sites. At least 10% of trees should be fitted with bird boxes to recompense for the general loss of nesting sites. The list of native tree species should be published so that the public know what is available for planting. Where there is an unconstrained choice of tree species, the species should be chosen by schoolchildren from nearby schools. Tree maintenance, i.e. branch lopping, should be carried out be appropriately trained tree surgeons and not seasonal workers. Health checks should be carried out on all trees in Stirling Council's public parks, woodlands and amenity areas at least once every two years. Valuable, rare, leaning and/or vulnerable trees should be checked at least once every year. Where trees on Council land adjacent to roads, highways, paths, cycle lanes, Sustrans routes and public rights of way are deemed dangerous, Stirling Council should without delay remove the trees. Where trees on private land adjacent to roads, highways, paths, cycle lanes, Sustrans routes and public rights of way are deemed dangerous, and where the landowner is refusing/failing to deal with the trees, Stirling Council should without delay remove the trees and charge the landowner. The yearly budgets for tree planting, management and replacement should be both available and easily accessible on Stirling Council's website.

David Morley5 years ago I would not call this a policy document, it is more a set of management guidelines for the existing trees and woodlands. There is an absence of a vision as to what the future trees and woodlands managed by Stirling Council would look like. It is fairly dry and technical document and doesn't really inspire. The document would benefit from a section on monitoring and evaluation. At present, it is not possible to see what the future would look like, nor whether targets are on track or achieved. A section on communications would also be useful. How will progress, achievements and learnings be shared, and how will feedback from communities be captured to allow continued review and modification. I would like to see more on how woodlands are being managed as ecosystems rather than a collection of trees. More detail please on enhancing the structure and biodiversity of woodlands. It would be great if the council could also ban the use of all peat products, and pesticides and herbicides in tree and woodland management. Is it possible to use, or phase in use, of nly electric powered machines in day-to-day operations?

Paul Dumbleton5 years ago There is much to be welcomed in this policy, especially the underlying message that trees are assets that deserve protection and need active management. As other commenters have already pointed out, there is also more that could be added to the policy. I will be contributing to a response from TreeLink Stirling which will cover these details. One of its recommendations will be that Stirling Council incorporates the principles of the United Nations "Tree Cities of the World" programme into its policy to ensure that the policy is properly resourced - Tree Cities of the World | TreeLink Stirling

Dorothy Parker5 years ago

Michelle Pearson5 years ago The profile of Stirling Council’s goals in meeting its Nature and Climate commitments will most certainly be raised, further respected and more readily supported if Stirling Council signed up to ‘Tree Cities of the World’. I would encourage this positive and inspiring step forward as we tackle the environmental challenges we are facing both nationally and worldwide. Pride and enhancement in our community spirit to action would naturally ensue with beneficial consequences not only locally across many spectrums but internationally too.

TreeLink Stirling5 years ago TreeLink Stirling response to the Stirling Council Draft Tree & Woodland Policy.We write as the trustees of Treelink Stirling to provide comment on the draft Tree and Woodland Policy (AW 160621) in response to Stirling Council’s request for feedback on the draft.We welcome the aims set out on the consultation webpage and the recognition that trees and woodlands deliver a broad range of economic, social and environmental benefits. The timescales recognised internationally for meaningful climate and biodiversity are extremely short – a matter of a few years. This we urge the council to treat this matter as one of the utmost urgency, and that requires a clear and effective policy that recognises the multiple values of trees and woodlands and sets out clear objectives and actions for their improvement and expansion across the council area.Should a policy be developed to deliver on these aims and embed trees and woodlands at the heart of decision making for the council region’s people and businesses this will be a very significant and much-needed advance. Unfortunately, however, the draft policy takes an extremely narrow and operational approach to trees and woodlands and lacks the vision and strategy that are essential to meet the council’s aims which are in turn demanded by Scottish Government policy. The overwhelming body of the document consists of operational issues setting out how the council will deal with trees in certain situations to meet minimum requirements under law. It is this very approach that continues to lead to the ongoing attrition and degradation of our trees and woodlands within the council area. To reverse this decline and deliver an effective policy, the council must look forward to the very substantial task that the Scottish Government has set and provide a clear route map as to how we get there whilst maximising benefit and value to all sectors of Stirling society. Currently, there is a near total disconnect between Scottish government policy for tree and woodland expansion and how Stirling will meet the aims of such, indeed, woodlands are almost totally overlooked in the current draft. It is not until we reach page 14 that the tree planting programme is mentioned in any significant way and at that point detail is scant, basic and unsatisfactory. Indeed, the document currently states that even basic approaches to planting for climate resilient future trees and woodlands are not possible due to a lack of appropriate research. This is simply untrue and risks fostering fatalism and a lack of action at a time when effective action to expand our tree and woodland cover is of the utmost urgency. To produce an effective policy that goes beyond this current ‘operations manual’, the council must consider its strategic aims and goals for tree and woodland planting in detail. Those aims set out on the consultation webpage are a great start, but they demand specific actions if they are to be met. Several examples are given below.1) The council must consider effective expansion and renewal of urban trees. An effective and efficient approach will invest in urban trees to expand the urban tree canopy and unite disparate parks and woodland patches such that trees flow into and through our towns and cities as green infrastructure for leisure and active transport, biodiversity corridors and breaks on airborne pollution. Green streets raise property values, visitor footfall and health and wellbeing outcomes for all. This approach will maximise benefits to citizens and visitors to our built environment, minimise cost by smart planting locations and add enormous economic and social value to our built environments as habitat and heritage – for people, plants and animals alike. 2) Scottish government targets for tree planting and climate change mitigation are ambitious yet non-independent. This interlinkage represents a clear opportunity for the council to hit multiple targets with the same investment. The council must set out clear and spatially explicit plans for which areas are to be planted with trees, which species in which locations and when. Dovetailing tree planting with other priority actions such as flood risk reduction and urban renewal will allow a landscape-scale prioritisation of locations to take place to deliver for ecosystem services, carbon and biodiversity goals. Local communities must be consulted on what they want from their trees and woodlands and involved in the planning and decision-making process from early on. 3) Planting trees does not deliver a woodland overnight. Forest ecosystems take centuries to mature and become self-sustaining yet this development time provides opportunity for the council to meet wider biodiversity goals. The Council must give thought to management of planted areas before a recognisable woodland structure develops. Until such time planted stands provide opportunity for species of open areas but are typically at risk of invasive species establishment and in need of routine maintenance to maximise tree establishment and remove impediments. Thus, this policy must also be fully integrated with Alive With Nature. 4) We urge Stirling Council to commit to affiliating with the United Nations Tree Cities of the World programme. ‘City’ here refers to a local authority area so in Stirling’s case it would include the rural and urban parts of the authority. In practical terms, this would mean that the Council would commit to meeting the programme's five principles.1.Identify an officer or team in the Council with the overall responsibility for managing and planting trees and woodlands.2. Ensure that a clear inventory of trees and woodlands is maintained and shared.3. Detail the Council’s strategy for protecting, managing and increasing trees and woodlands.4. Make a clearly identifiable budget available for tree and woodland management and planting.5. Raise awareness of the benefits of trees and woodlands through community engagement and celebration of the benefits of trees in our communities. These commitments are fully in line with the aims set out for the tree and woodland policy in the web page preamble referred to at the beginning of our response and would, therefore, help the Council to meet its ambitious tree planting targets. Formal commitment would ensure that the focus is not just on numbers planted but on getting 'the right trees into the right places' and on looking after our existing trees and woodlands. Crucially, it would commit a budget to this essential work. Currently, there is no mention of the funding sources by which the policy aims might be met and thus greater clarity on this point is needed if the council is to move from policy to action.In summary, we ask the council to set out a complete revision of its policy that is centred upon a clear vision and strategy, embedding trees and woodlands as a fundamentally important and highly valued component of our rural and urban landscapes such that that value is developed for all of Stirling’s people.

Riverside Naturally5 years ago Stirling Council Tree and Woodland Policy ConsultationResponse from Riverside NaturallyRiverside Naturally (RN) is an environmental community group - www.riversidenaturally.org RN welcomes the publication of this policy and welcomes Stirling Council’s recognition of trees as an environmental asset and not merely a problem for officers to manage. RN has some comments about the draft policy: There appears to be no explicit link between this policy and Stirling Council’s Alive with Nature plan or to Stirling Council’s Climate and Nature Emergency Plan. It would be very helpful to see the ways in which various ‘strategies’, ‘plans’ and ‘policies’ support each other. For example this document lists 5 points (improving biodiversity etc) in the introduction but does not address them in the policy, which is largely 16 or 17 pages of reasons why the council won't cut down certain trees. R.N. suggests that this policy is clearly aligned with Alive With Nature. It would also be useful to make explicit the way it aligns with the Council’s obligations arising from the Scottish Governments commitment emission reductions. The draft is titled Tree & Woodland Policy but says very little about how the Council does and will manage the woodlands for which it is responsible. For example, the policy should cover issues such as the removal or retention of felled trees on site. This might also address issues such as the appropriate areas for woodland creation and those not suited such as peatlands. There appears to be an important part of the policy missing. It would also be useful to know which woodlands are owned or managed by Stirling Council and if there are any in RN’s area of interest. A map or list would allow local groups such as RN to contribute their knowledge and volunteer efforts. It would be useful to add a section on the use of herbicides which should not be used on or near trees for any reason other than control of toxic invasive species. The policy could be strengthened by reference to development and the need to preserve trees/woodland when new development takes place. For example a significant part of the river bank wildlife corridor through Riverside has been destroyed by development at Riverside Quay and further development near there is planned. The policy could also be strengthened by addressing the role of fruit bearing trees in food production and the encouragement of community orchards such as the one managed by Riverside Naturally. The policy could be delivered more effectively if Stirling Council committed to the five principles of the United Nations programme Tree Cities of the World. Riverside NaturallyRegistered with the Scottish Charity RegulatorSCIO SC049269

Susan Dumbleton5 years ago Stirling Council Tree and Woodland Policy ConsultationResponse from Riverside Community CouncilRiverside Community Council (RCC) is an environmentally aware Community Council which works closely with a local environmental organisation (Riverside Naturally) and a Stirling-wide environmental organisation (Treelink Stirling). RCC welcomes the publication of this policy. RCC considers that Stirling Council’s recognition of trees as an environmental asset and not merely a problem for officers to manage is positive. It is helpful to the CC that the policy makes explicit statements about the benefits of trees and why they are considered to be assets. For example Point 6 (p4 of the document) is a useful reference for the CC if it is contacted by a resident concerned about a tree. RCC values the trees within its open spaces and welcomes plans for other locations to enjoy similar benefits. RCC has some outstanding comments and questions about the policy and would welcome clarification on the following points: There appears to be no explicit link between this policy and Stirling Council’s Alive with Nature plan. RCC feels that, for maximum positive effect, this policy should have been embedded within the Alive with Nature plan. Is this an action which can be taken retrospectively? RCC feels strongly that all policies of this nature should be explicitly linked to Stirling Council’s declared Climate and Nature Emergency. What is Stirling Council’s definition of a woodland? How are they to be ‘managed’? Where are the woodlands owned or managed by Stirling Council? For example, is there one within RCC’s area? The CC would have found an appendix with this information helpful. Where are woodlands to be ‘increased’? Again an appendix with this would have been useful for the CC for its own environmental planning. RCC has a strong commitment to Active Travel and Sustainable Transport. There is no mention within this policy of trees supporting slower and healthier streets and no indication of where the Council plans to plant or replace street trees. An indication of this would be helpful to the CC so that when new street trees are planted it is aware of the and can relate them to its work on Active Travel.

James Byrne5 years ago I'm am very glad to hear that the Council is looking at planting more native trees. We are in the midst of a climate and nature crisis and planting more native trees can help address both. The Tree strategy should include / highlight nesting birds and and roosting bats and the legal issues around these. something about developers and development and how it should be required to maintain trees and biodiversity in general on site and also contribute to the Councils targets for planting trees - this includes paying for the labour ad machinery to undertake the work) state that felled trees should be kept on site as deadwood is an important ecological habitat. the erection of bat boxes, bird boxes, owl boxes etc look at linking existing woodlands together - making nature recovery corridors etc as well as making existing woodlands, bigger, better, more connected and more. look at creating community orchards look at improving the tree cover throughout Stirling but starting, in an urban sense, with disadvantaged communities, given that they are likely to be living in disproportionally less green areas, and thus not benefiting from the health and well-being benefits of green infrastructure look at influencing other major landowners in Stirling.

JL Miller5 years ago

Tom Palmer5 years ago The aims of the policy are detailing liability end demonstrating how number and diversity of trees will be managedThe detail is full of examples on liability but totally lacking on plans for future expansionI expected a wood land policy which purports to support the Alive with Nature plan to plant 80,000 trees to say a lot more about where, when and how this would be achievedGenerally not an inspiring document

Liz Albert5 years ago It is quite helpful to have clear statements about what the Council do and don't do currently regarding Council-owned trees and woodland.The aims of harnessing better management of trees and woodlands, and extending the numbers of trees and areas of woodland where possible, including by natural regeneration, are good. This can be one part of addressing wider issues of Climate Change and Biodiversity LossMy suggestions for adding in / amending:1 You have an aim to enhance biodiversity. You mention in various places in the Draft choice of species of tree(s), but you don't clearly link the 2, more often mentioning choosing tree species of suitable size and habit of growth for the site etc. While size and habit of growth are important, I would like you to add in specifically to all mentions of choice of tree species that each choice should also enhance biodiversity, including specifically mentioning examples like catkin-bearing species which provide food for pollinators very early in the season, when there is often little else in the way of food available for them. Also, specifically mentioning trees which form berries or nuts later in the season, as these provide food for a wide range of species including insects, birds and small mammals. 2 You wish to promote good management of trees and woodlands by demonstrating it yourself. However, I don't see any particular plan about how to communicate that to the public, to owners of trees or woodland, or to anyone really. I think you need to add in specific ideas about how to promote good tree and woodland management, or at least a plan for how to work out how to do this well. No mention, for example, of your proposed Forum for Landowners / Land Managers, where it could be included, to spread ideas, but also to ask for their help in leading / taking part in event to promote good treeand woodland management. What about outdoor events for members of the public / Community Council members, to help them learn about good practice, and to share what choices you are making at that time. What about involving local or not-so-local Community Woodland Ownership Groups to demonstrate what work they are doing and why? This latter might also spread information about the value of Community Ownership of Woodland which would be good thing in itself.3 It would be valuable to consider, and spell out in your Policy, how your use of herbicides should be integrated into your policy on management of trees and woodland, a main aim being to reduce / eliminate herbicide use the vicinity of existing trees. Especially, it would be valuable to eliminate use of herbicides containing neonicitinoids, which have such a damaging effect on biodiversity, as they persist for so long in soil and water.4 When you have to replace trees you have felled in a different location, always consider the value of choosing locations beside watercourses where possible, for the added value from shading parts of the watercourse for the sake of fish and other freshwater species, reduction of flooding and reduction of erosion of the banks.Thanks

Joy Macnaughton5 years ago

Jorge Iguzquiza5 years ago * As well as the extensive report on operational issues, it would be very useful to also add a more strategic vision to the document, highlighting Stirling Council's general plans regarding tree and woodlands and linking this policy more clearly with the Alive with Nature plan and the Climate and Nature Emergency Plan. * More maps, please. It would be very helpful to see more maps in the report with some general locations, different local woodlands, tree coverage, areas of interest, etc* The development of a public map and an inventory of the urban trees and its coverage through this policy would also be very useful to promote and protect trees and community woodlands while engaging further with the general public.* Stirling Council should commit to affiliating with the United Nations 'Trees cities of the World' programme and incorporate its principles into this policy.* With the significant and ambitious targets of tree planting described in the Alive with nature Plan, more support to this section/department of the Council should be provided including perhaps the recruitment of additional officers to deliver this policy properly.* Highlight and further acknowledge the social benefits of trees and promote through this policy more street/urban trees and woodlands, in particular in areas/ streets where tree coverage is poor.* Mention more clearly restrictions to developers and new developments including the preservation of mature trees and the promotion of new tree planting to be included within new development areas.* An FAQs section at the end of the document would be very useful. See similar policy document from East Dunbartonshire Council.

JANET HARBIDGE5 years ago I have little to add to the contributions from James Byrne and Liz Albert whose views I wholeheartedly endorse. When planting trees we must take into account their value to wildlife (birds, pollinators and small mammals). But they must be managed! There are three areas in particular where this is not happening. One is the bank alongside the lane at the back of the Albert Halls; many wild flowers grow there but are in danger of being overwhelmed by the numerous saplings which have sprung up; another is the embankment opposite Lecropt Church where, in 2006, over 6500 Orchids grew as well as the rare Adder's Tongue Fern. Now the bank is covered in Birch trees and shrubs and the numbers of these lovely plants is now miniscule by comparison. The Ash trees which predominate on Gowan Hill look as though they have been allowed to grow unchecked such that the views of the Castle are impaired as too is the biodiversity of the area. No doubt these trees will succumb to disease before too long after which it would be good to see them replaced by more diverse species.Jan Harbidge

Pat Morrissey5 years ago I'm a bit confused by the "policy" document as it delivers little in the way of policy and does not address the 5 points (improving biodiversity etc) listed in the introduction. Instead there are 16 or 17 pages of reasons why the council won't cut down certain trees. The council really has to look at adopting the Tree Cities of the World (https://treecitiesoftheworld.org/) programme and ensure that some policy makers attend the virtual conference on 27/28 July. If the council meets the five core standards then it has a blueprint for a sustainable, bio-diverse well managed approach to an environment where trees are at the centre of its nature and climate policy.

Dominic Farrugia5 years ago I wish to comment on the proposed Tree and Maintenance Policy. In essence, the policy ensures the council will only remove, manage or prune a tree where there is a clear risk to public safety. In short, this is the absolute minimum actions required by the council and this document will be used as reason for the council not to act when their tree's become a problem for house holders or a community. For example Lesser Wood in Bridge of Allan is not being managed and as a result the trees have become dense with naturally seeded ash trees and ivy forming an impenetrable barrier. Lesser Wood was a loosely wooded area for over 150 years which forms part of the historic setting of the town. Upper Bridge of Allan has historically been largely visible to Henderson Street for over a century and a half. Surely, it would not be unreasonable to include in this policy the ability to grant Council Officers the discretion to allow specific pruning / maintenance or very limited pollarding of specific trees to alleviate the concerns of an entire street of residents? A tree management plan could be agreed with local residents, the cost of such work met by the local residents themselves including an appropriate replanting plan. The work would of course be performed by a council approved tree surgeon. I do not see why the council policy has to be so black an white and why it cannot allow a degree of flexibility and discretion if there is no financial cost to the council. Surely if it did so, it would foster a much better working relationship between council and residents.

Jon Preston5 years ago Asides from specific health benefits trees also improve general wellbeing having positive effects on mood, blood pressure, anxiety and depression. Acknowledging the physical and mental health benefits of trees should be communicated when engaging with the public. We are not only facing a climate and ecological emergency but mental health impacts are also increasing. Benefits to health also means lower impact on health budgets which allow health budgets to be reallocated within healthcare eg for shortening waiting times but also for rehabilition and start tackling mental health. (NB I am not talking about health cuts here).It should be noted that while trees do indeed mitigate the effects of pollutants this is likely not without cost to trees and they biodiversity they support. This means air pollution and the causes of air pollution also need to be tackled in conjunction with a tree and woodland policy so they are better able to thrive.There is much focus on the legislation on individual trees, which while important seems to detract from an ambitious woodland strategy and seems to be framing things in terms of barriers. Also the document referred to urban trees and said nothing about procuring land such as brownfield sites.There was no mention of tackling invasive species such as giant hogweed, japanese knotweed and other invasive species that greatly reduce plant biodiversity on the ground and therefore insect, amphibian, reptile, mammal and bird species. The Darn Walk has areas plagued by giant hogweed as do other areas around Stirling Council area. Tackling these species should be part of a tree, woodland and indeed a riverine strategy.The Forth and its tributaries are a key part of Stirling Councils areas ecology that should be taken into consideration. We have a serious problem with invasive species which in the case of giant hogweed should begin with clearing it from upstream. Most of the Forth lies within Stirling Council area with a few tributaries such as the Knaik beginning in South Perthshire.The strategy should consider what species can be planted where and the suitability of various species for the soil type and existing flora and fauna. For example it is possible to plant trees and release more soil carbon than is absorbed.While the document focuses on urban trees this should not be a reason to avoid planting in some areas. Rather the council should look at how things can be improved in all areas for the benefit of all communities.The strategy should also link in with other frameworks and policies. In particular the strategy should tie in with UN Trees Cities of the World and the UN Sustainable Development Goals and consider and develop its strategy in such a way that creates synergy between them.It is vital we have adequate resources and are able to achieve targets over and above those set be the Scottish Government. For example the recent arrangement between the SNP and Scottish Greens proposes 18,000 hectares of woodland. This is only 12 km by 15 km. We need much more ambition.It is also vital that we engage with the public and consider an inventory of all suitable land and provide adequate mapping and relate the benefits too communities as well as the climate and ecological emergency.The strategy should also look at orphaned land and see how this can be procured but also require an obligation for housing developments to provide wooded areas.Finally the council should consider locations suitable for woodland or extending woodland that can be made in to protected areas.I'd like to further add I get no sense of where Council's statutory responsibilities lie, to what extent the might exceed those responsibilities and how much further their proposals will take them. I feel the policies on cutting branches, 'antisocial berries' should have been a separate 'current policy' document leaving much more for the actual Tree and Woodland Strategy document and a table comparing current versus proposed and how those policies will be exceeded. Much of it seems 'linear' rather than thinking about the rich interconnectedness of the benefits hence the need for mapping to frameworks like the UN's Sustainble Development Goals.

Murray Cook5 years ago

Filters

Total posts: 19

There are 19 projects available.

Selected zero tag filters.

Selected zero tag filters.