BASE HEADER

I am commenting on the Prospectus 'Garden Towns, Villages and Suburbs'. My comments are confined to Green Infrastructure and to trees in particular.

National background

Trees in Towns II was published by DEFRA in 2008 and still represents the best overview of the subject. Among its findings were:

* We have a strong heritage of trees planted in twentieth century, widely taken for granted. But many trees will need replacing soon. We face a loss of up to 80% over the next 40 years, especially the larger species of tree. Without planting there will be a massive drop in tree population.
* The benefits of trees are increasingly evidenced by science.
* Local authority resources devoted to trees are in steep decline.
* Two third of urban trees are in non-council ownership, mainly in gardens. We need to think in term of the 'urban forest', ie all trees regardless of ownership.

Among its recommendations were:

* Wherever possible, plant en masse, rather than single specimens.
* Scale and proportion (including eventual scale) are critical.
* Plant in the ground, not in planters.
* Plant in such a way (eg depth, soil type) that trees will be self-sustaining and don't need watering after initial establishment - although they will never do as well as in their natural environment.
* For significant planting, services (eg utilities) need to be rationalized.
* Avoid small trees and trees that have become clichés, eg Raywood Ash, Chanticleer Pear.
* Wherever possible go instead for big trees. They deliver the most benefits in terms of amenity, aesthetic value, climate proofing, biodiversity.
* Don't be confined to native species, which are few in number. Many non-native trees are good for wild life

I set out these points because they are all relevant if the concept of the Green Infrastructure is to mean anything in practice.

The local position

Warwick District has a few good streets, including those shown in the consultation document. I note in passing that the best of these do not include native trees. They also occur in relatively wide street settings.

On the whole, however, the District is not particularly noteworthy for good street planting, especially in the town centres. Equally relevant, there have been some disasters. The worst is Chase Meadow, where there are no street trees at all. That is highly relevant in considering new housing developments from a green point of view.

Specifically, why are there no street trees in Chase Meadow. The answer is to be found in bureaucratic politics. Typically, Planning Departments and County Council Highways Departments are opposed to street trees. They cost money to plant and maintain; they interfere with infrastructure and signage; they take up space. These attitudes are echoed by developers.

If nothing in particular is done to champion street trees then we will end up with another Chase Meadow situation.

What should be done?

What is needed is a recognition of the problem and the designation of someone with responsibility for this aspect of planning. That individual or team needs to be involved at the very outset, in such matters as decisions on the width of streets. This is a difficult job because it means cutting across the lines of power within local authority departments. Without support at elected member level little will happen.

I could make various suggestions about planting. They would broadly follow the recommendations of Trees in Towns II. In particular:

* Include trees that will become large, not just small or medium-sized ones.
* Do not confine planting to native species. The inclination to do so is understandable in sentimental terms and is widespread. It is, however, ill-informed and wrong-headed.

I would be happy to get involved in this aspect of planning, in an advisory role. I am a Tree Warden and have written a number of guides to local trees, two of which have been published by the Warwick District Council.