We all know that trees are necessary for life but the ones that can cause injury to life should be removed, even if, as some correspondents tell us removal of their road side tree will devalue their houses.
A Star letter writer says we should get over it and just cope with problems the trees cause
Try telling that to the lady who, two years after slipping on wet leaves, is still having operations to mend her shattered bones, or the partially- sighted man who fractured his skull tripping over tree roots on a pavement.
Say, ‘get over it’, to the family of the man killed on Rivelin Valley Road where Rails Road crosses it and the sight is totally blocked by a roadside tree.
After the accident it was recommended that the tree be felled for the safety of others – it hasn’t been.
I enjoy trees but unlike others I accept that our forefathers got it wrong in planting forest-sized trees in urban settings, (they also planted Himalayan balsam and Japanese knotweed, there doesn’t seem to be anyone ‘hugging’ these).
Forest-sized tree should not be near any roads, pavements or urban gardens. The damage they do costs all of us, as tax-payers, money that would be better spent elsewhere.
Let those who are concerned about the value of their homes and wish to keep the trees, pay an additional council tax for repairs and compensation claims.
Those of us who care more about safety ask the council to remove trees causing hazards, there are a number in my locality that restrict vision when driving and even in winter block out street lights, further restricting vision.
Do you know that some of the so-called ‘speed humps’ are in fact tree roots that have been merely asphalted over?
The other roots are going under your house.