Response to the Bucks Council tree consultation on Eskdale Avenue

We believe the proposal to cut down all fifteen trees along Eskdale Avenue is ill conceived and contrary to the wellbeing of the local community. We note four options are identified in the Atkins Realis Feasibility Study, only two of which involve the removal of all the trees. The study notes that each option shows a feasible approach for maintenance and improvement for the footway on Eskdale Avenue.
We appreciate that some of the older trees have grown so as to disrupt the pavements. However, we think better management over the years could have mitigated this problem. Furthermore, the trees are of differing ages and sizes, including one planted very recently, and therefore the opportunity to manage their growth has not been lost.

At a time when we are experiencing the effects of climate change and it has been scientifically proved that trees mitigate its effects, we should not be removing them wholesale from the public space. It has also been proved that trees lead to a reduction in pollution and noise levels in the local area.

We consider trees should only be removed for sound management reasons, for example if they pose a danger to the public and any trees so removed should be immediately replaced. Clearly, the trees in Eskdale Avenue vary in terms of their state of health and condition. It is understood two would have to be removed, if at least three of the options were implemented. However, we do not believe there is a case for removing many of the others. For example, TO12 identified in the Atkins Realis Arboricultural Report is a lime tree situated behind a close board fence, no displacement of pavement surfacing was observed and is in good condition. We consider option B, where only 3 healthy trees would be removed, to be a reasonable compromise between tree retention and pedestrian access.

The Chesham Society was established nearly 70 years ago to protect and enhance the built and natural heritage of the town and surrounding area and to maintain and improve the environment and amenities enjoyed by local people. We believe the effect of options C or D, if implemented, would be contrary to these objectives. We therefore ask that the matter should be fundamentally reconsidered.